H 


•*>^  \\ 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


/ 


r 


ri-^/ 


7 


o 


Si-  ^j 


/ 


;/. 


A 


^ 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


V. 


\m  ™|2  5 


f3  2 


<Mi<« 


1.4 


22 


12  0 


1.8 


1.6 


PhotoQHphic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREFT 

WEBSTER,  N.Y    14580 

(716)  872-4503 


\ 


;v 


•1>' 


\ 


\ 


% 


V 


6^ 


^f 


%  i^ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  canadien  de  microreproductions  historiques 


# 


4^' 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notos  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming   Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographica!ly  unique. 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  m  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


L'Institut  a  microfilmo  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
quil  lui  a  ete  possible  de  se  procurer    Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sunt  peut  etre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique    qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite    ou  qui  peuvent  exiqwr  une 
modification  dans  la  m6thode  normale  de  filmage 
sent  indiqu^s  ci  dessous 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


D 


Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 


1    Covers  damaged/ 

^    Couverture  endommagee 


n 


Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommag^es 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur6e  et/ou  pellicul^e 


c 


Pages  lestored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaurees  et/ou  pelliculees 


Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  t.tre  de  couverture  manque 

I 1    Coloured  maps/ 

I I    Cartes  geographiques  en  couleur 


Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  decolorees,  tachetees  ou  piquees 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  detachees 


I 1    Coloured  ink  (i  e    other  than  blue  or  black)/ 

i    Encre  de  couleur  lie   autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


(       \    Showthrough/ 
1    Transparence 


n 


Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 


D 


Quality  of  print  var  es/ 
Qualite  in^gale  de  I'impression 


Bound  with  other  material/ 
Relie  avec  d'autres  documents 


□ 


Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  supplementoire 


Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

Lareliure  serree  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distorsion  le  long  de  la  marge  interieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajout^es 
lors  d  une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  ete  filmdes. 


□ 


Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc  .  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  derrata,  une  pelure, 
etc..  ont  ete  film6es  ^  nouveau  de  facon  i 
obienif  la  meilleure  image  possible 


Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  supplementaires 


This  Item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  filme  au  taux  de  reduction  indique  ci-dessous. 

18X  22X 


10X 


14X 


26X 


30X 


12X, 


16X 


20X 


28X 


32X 


The  copy  filmud  hore  has  been  reproduced  thjinks 
to  the  generosity  of 

Library  of  Conqress 
Photndiiplic.Jtion  Sfirvice 

The  irrtages  aijpeciring  hore  <«re  the  best  qu'«l'W 
possible  consi.iering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications 


I  HKtMnplfiire  fihne  fut  lupioduit  grace  6  la 
g^nerositJi  de' 

library  of  Congrfcss 
Photod'U>li(  .ifion  Service 

Les  images  suiviintes  ont  6t6  roprodiiites  aver  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  I.I  nottcte  du  I'exemplaire  filrnu,  nt  en 
confurmit«^  avoc  los  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filn^age 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres 
sion,  or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate    All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres 
sion,  and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  — i^  (meaning  "CON 
TIIMUED"),  or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END). 
whichever  applies 

Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  oxemplaires  oriqinaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  ost  impriin6e  sufU  film6s  en  commencant 
par  le  premier  |)lat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
deftii6re  page  qui  con\porte  une  ompreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  salon  le  cas   Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  film6s  en  commencant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporlo  une  enipreinte 
d'impression  cii  d'illustration  at  en  terminant  par 
la  derni6re  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
derni^re  image  de  chaque  microfiche    selon  le 
cas    le  syrnbole  — •►  signifie     A  SUIVRt  ',  le 
symbole  V  signifie     FIN  ". 

Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc  .  peuvent  etre 
film^s  <i  des  taux  de  reduction  differents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  etre 
reproduit  '-n  un  seul  clich6,  il  est  filrne  ct  partir 
de  Tangle  superieur  gauche,  de  gauche  ^  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nonibre 
d'images  necessaire    Les  diagramnies  suivants 
illustrent  la  methode. 


1 


6 


'  t 


;3  ^'' 

feXAMINATION 


•i 


j^* 


«> 


GREAT  BRITAIN', 


RESPECTING  NEUTRALSv^ 


■^.•f'  '--f'^" 


-^4 


••  The  ardour,  with  which  the  British  miniitpy  embarired  in  the  waf  ttpintt 
•«  TnnOt,  WM  pretentiy  manifested  by,  ptrhaps,  the  moat  extraordinary 
"  proceeding,  that  ever  appeared  upon  record ;  and  this  was  to  force  th« 
"  neutral  powers  to  unite  in  the  combination  to  crush  the  French  republic*, 
[Britiah  annual  register  ef  ir93  ] 


f' 


i 


1 


i 


,'l! 


•••      k 


,S  PHILADEIPHIA! 

pRIjI^ttCll   *T  B»  GRAVES,    NO.    40,     NORTlft 


t-s. 


¥ 


*  tOt}RTB-STASl.T. 


^|J»'V 


'  *%. 


S-V 


1807. 


'^i 
^ 


Nt 


i;i 


I'-t 


f 


i 

9- 


.CS7 


f: 


f 


-■ft-is.-.  ■'*  ■^A'w-; 


'4 


AV 


EXAMINATION 


0»  TH« 


i/ 


CONDUCT  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN, 


SINCE  THE  YEAR  1791,  &c. 


No.  I. 


AN  enlightened  bUic  of  tTie  public  mind  is  no  less 
necessary  to  the  political  morality  of  a  worthy  nation, 
than  "  a  luell  informed  conscience y'*  is  to  the  private  virtue 
of  an  honest  individual.  In  this  view,  the  mild  but  per* 
feet  illumination,  given  in  a  recent  state  paper*  to  the 
rights  of  our  flag,  in  rel  tion  to  persons  of  all  descriptions 
sailing  under  it,  appears  to  be  of  the  highest  importance 
both  occasional  and  permanent.  With  that  paper  mure 
than  tliree  years  before  them,  neither  the  friends  of  Eng- 
land nor  the  opponents  to  our  administration  have  been 
able  to  shew,  that  foreign  navies  can  lawfully  exercise  a 
right  of  search,  as  to  any  but  "  military  enemies"  even  in 
our  private  vessels.  The  public  mind,  thus  aided  by 
every  pertinent  light  and  perplexed  by  none,  which  is  not 
pertinent — makes  in  the  present  crisis  a  conscientious 
and  determined  stand  upon  the  noble  ground  of  ascertained 
truth.  It  is  in  vain,  that  some  regret,  that  the  citizens 
seized  on  board  the  frigate  Chesapeake,  were  permitted  to 
go  to  sea  in  her,  after  they  had  been  demanded  by  the 
British.  This,  though  it  may  have  been  otherwise  in- 
tended, is  an  implied  censure  on  Great  Britain;  because 
it  presumes,  that  her  character  is  so  irregular  and  violent, 
tjiat  it  was  to  have  been  expected,  that  her  officers  would 

*  The  Letter  of  Mr.  Madison  to  Mr.  Munroe,  of  Jonuwy,  1804. 


l!!. 


r 


( * ) 

ittmnl  to  MiK  our  men,  at  a  moment  of  peace,  in  one 
of  oT  ,W,rof  war.     The  riRht,  of  .hi,  country  to  .  « 
;.lumury  i-rvicc,  of  its  own  citizen..  <=»""«  be^u^J^;''^,^, 
or  ckstrovcd  by  foR  Rn  irregularities.— VVe  wantul  the 
S^c  ,  aKe  men  mufie  tlKirVvn  si<le  o  the  contract  by 
Tvo  untary  criKaKement  in  our  frigi-te.     It  is  necessary  to 
o^rTZ,  that'the  ri^ht  of  our  own  "t.«ns  to  be  cm- 
nlovcd  in  the  line  of  their  proper  occupation,  as  m.  riners, 
S«t  \^  suspcmled  or  destroyed  by  for^iBi,  '"^■^^""^': 
The  go>ernment  had  offered  agreeable  •■  "'P'oy "«'"'■  '"f 
1 1    caVtred  seanun  ha<l  accepted  it  of  their  own  aec^d. 
British  impressment,  odious  ami  K™"™' =^  I' '  {^^^ 
be  rendered  infmilely  more  so,  if  it  could  deprive  tni. 
country  of  it,  right  to  employ  it,  "^'^  f^J^''^^,'^ ^ 
could  deprive  any  cla  s  of  Our  (K-ople,  <>' 'h"\"f™ '^te 
«,emplo%l  by  their  naliv^c^^^^^^^^^ 

J;;e^vS;  tl'S|?.™^^o\r £s\f  U,  reason  and 
ImiveSpuSic  law.  which  com,K.sesthe  state  paper  con- 

"7'if  i^Ttolhe  diplomatic  letter  in  contemplation 
was  written  and  published  long  before  the  outn,ge  on  he 
Chci^wake,  but  its  relation  to  that  case  has  rendered  rt  a 
TubS  the  severest  scrutiny,  by  adversap-  minds. 
An  anxious  solicitude  to  p^mote  .he  diffusion  of  s.m.-. 

ngh  s  °n  •'^''"S  tere.     But  the  same  a.ixiety  for  truth 
a^^fo^'in  tee  to  our  ^amen,  our  merchants  and  our 

Toun^-.^rhS,  mov.^  o- t-r  At  T:,:z  r^t. 

^tts  well  known  to  America  and  Europe  (for  the  appeal 
is  made  w  h  couficlence  to  tlic  .hole  c;vil-«  jo^^)  te^ 
IhiTeountry,  in  common  with  oth-^  "evj-^^^^'j  ^as^^^ 
extremely  harrassed  and  injured  bj  the  conuuei  u. 
aS  iit  the  wars,  Mhicb  have  been  occasioned  by  the 


/i," 


jce,  in  one 
jntry  to  the 
:  buspcndcd 
wanted  the 
contract  by 
neccssar)  to 
ts  to  be  em- 
us mariners, 
•regularities. 
)ymcnt,  and 
own  accord. 
i  it  is,  would 
deprive  thii 
)le,  a^d  if  it 
ir  right  to  be 
V  such  feeble 
(iccasion,  are 
h,  reason  and 
,te  paper  con- 

:ontemplation 
utriige  on  the 
rendered  it  a 
)•  minds, 
jhion  of  simi-. 
md  vexations, 
iduct  of  Eng. 
ht.     It  is  true 
nsured  to  our 
solute  demon- 
xiety  for  truth 
dants  and  our 
L,  may  operate 
»vents,  he  will 
itf  mite  he  pos- 

(for  the  appeal 
zed  world)  that 
itates,  has  been 
iduct  of  Great 
asioncd  by  the 


(     5     ) 

French  revolutions.  At  the  crisis  of  the  apparent  ma- 
turity of  our  negociati<.ns  uiih  the  British  govtri.ment  in^ 
the  close  of  the  lust  year,  these  uggrcssions  had  risen  to  the 
most  offensive  and  injurious  heiglit.  The  writer  of  these 
putres  does  not  pretend  to  any  ofHcial  information  (for  he 
writes  not  on  the  motion  nor  even  with  the  privity  of  any 
other  person)  but  he  ventures  to  alFuni  from  abundant  and 
conclusive  evidence  tx-fore  the  public,  that  aik'r  the  form, 
the  subst.ince,  and  one  of  the  co|  ies  of  the  digested  treaty 
had  received  the  assent  and  signatures  of  Messrs.  Monroe 
and  Pinckney,  and  in  the  final  act  of  delivering  the  British 
counterpart,  delilierately  signed  also,  a  written  note  was 
presented  by  their  negociating  ministers,  to  our  ministers, 
purporting  that  though  the  treaty  was  thus  formally  signed 
aiid  exchanged,  yet  the  British  government  would  cotisider 
themselves  as  entitled  to  do  towards  the  United  States 
whatever  we  should  sustahi  and  permit  from  the  French, 
in  consequence  of  their  decree  of  the  2 1st  of  November 
and,  of  course,  of  any  other  such  decrees*. 

No  observation  is  intended  to  be  made  here  upon  this 
British  accompaniment  of  a  treaty  matured  and  mutually 
signed  after  the  decree  of  the  2l8t  of  November,  was 
known.  That  extraordinaiy  act  has  happily  met  with  its 
proper  treatment, — an  open  stand, — calm,  decorous,  intel-r 
ligent  and  firm.  So  far  as  our  country  understands  and 
considers  the  subject,  it  is  strongly  with  the  government 
on  this  point,  and  that  too  in  the  case  of  many  persons 
eminent  in  the  walks  of  party  opposition. 

The  state  of  mind  displa}'ed  by  the  British  government, 
in  thus  endeavouring  to  draw  us  into  a  situation  of  assent 
to  this  dangerous  and  unwarrantable  attempt  of  theirs,  and 
the  spirit  of  perseverance  in  wrong,  they  have  manifested 
in  their  various  orders  of  council  of  January  7th  and  of 
other  dates  in  this  year,  have  given  rise  to  an  opinion,  that 
it  would  be  of  the  greatest  public  utility  to  place  before  the 
nation,  some  of  those  anterior,  successive  and  numerous 
acts  of  the  British  government,  which  have  illegitimately 
thrown  the  neutral  states  into  situations  of  unprecedented 
hardship  and  injustice,  and  which  the  history  of  tjic  British 

*  Sec  the  publication,  ccnccmin|f  the  proposed  treaty  At  New-Yoik  in  Sept. 


'*•'  I 


(    «   5 

•„M*  T'ei   will  nrove  to  have  brought  on  many 
rhi'suX  cmU      t  S.  .hcconaucrof  InRlund  sine. 

7n  ;ionr_l.  •»  our  A,  ^^ ''^.-^^f  ;,";* 
Llmlv  ami  freely  <o  txamiiic  ihe  «iil)ject,  ihal  »e  tna>  oe 
prl^!^3To  d"  Jmin.  on  .he  eonduc.  »e  ough.  .o  p«r. 

•"?„  tt:  » tlgT  mut;^  r  ■con.eo.pU.-.on,  in-o  . 

'ZJ.I^Tal'a'nanl  Jch  ,he  i.par.lalU,  of  neu.raU 
might  to  pirtnUlo  her.  ,  „^,  ^|,,,„   „. 

cced  «  "'' ''f  *S  w";^^^   heretofore-  made,  or  ap^ar  to 
country. 


No.  11. 

Tt  has  been  -^^:^^:;,^::^^^^ 

«'that  the  goveniment  of  France  nas  an  1       1 

-to  the  culpable  PJ^-emmence  of  hav.ng^^^^^^^^ 

i.  in  the  violation  of  neutral  "g^J^'  f5^^^^^^^^       to  their 

«  the  part  of  the  Bntjsh  S^jL^"  ^^"J^^^^^^^^  nearly 


ht  on  many 
virnmcnt», 
f  I rancc  of 

l^luiul  s'lMCV 

uplctc  rtvo- 
iiKk'iKrnclent 
tiivcrsal  hvf 
I  our  ri}?ht, 
v,c  may  be 
ght  to  pur- 

ition,  into  a 
litely  submit 
t  liiitiin'was 
y  purswrd  t9 
>/■  //><?  /■/.  5. 
rw  constantly, 
iprecedcnted^- 
or  under  the 
-espect  to  her 
y  of  TH'utrah 

we  shall  pro- 
iome  contrary 
:,  or  appear  to 
I  in  our  own 


mc,  believed, 
disputable  title 
taken  the  lead 
•;»t  instance,  on 
;rring  to  their 
lid  to  be  nearly 
:  of  the  evil  by 
'rcnch  Conven- 
vords,  in  which 


I 


(    7    ) 

fK«tchHrge  was  bron|«;hr  in  1798,  af^ainst  tljc  French  ro» 
vcrnmcnt,  by  the  writer  of  a  scries  of  ivapcrs  in  the  G*. 

»  ictu  of  the  United  States,  cmitlcd,  ♦♦The  Warning/' and 
siRTicd  ♦♦  Amcricus."  Those  pai)ers  were  manifest!? 
written  by  a  person  very  minutely  informed  concerninjf 
the  transactions  of  our  government,  and  have  been  gcner. 
»Ily  so  considered.*  It  is  proposed  to  show  that  he  was 
greatly  mistaken,  and  that,  Ik;  but  slightly  viewed  the 
•urface  of  the  subject. 

It  is  an  important  matter  of  observation,  that  a  simibr 
way  of  thinking  seems  to  have  txistt  d  even  Ijj  tlu:  execu- 
tive branch  of  the  government,  immediately  before  the 
publication  of  ♦♦  Tlic  Warning,"  rcierred  to' above;  lor, 
Jii  an  official  report,  it  is  observed,  that,  ♦♦  It  may  be  pro- 
*♦  per  to  remark  here,  that  this  decree  oHhe  Convention'' 
(that  of  the  9th  May,  1793,  mentioned  in  the  next  pre- 
ceding wntcncc)  "  dircciing  the  capture  of  nciUral  vessels 
*♦  laden  with  provisions  and  dtslined  for  enemy's  ports, 
*♦  preceded  by  one  month  the  order  of  the  British  govern- 
*♦  ment,"  referring  to  that  of  June  8th,  1793.  It  is  true, 
that  there  is  no  direct  assertion,  that  either  that  British  act, 
or  that  French  act,  is  the  leading  act  of  violation  committed 
by  Kngland  or  France  upon  the  neutral  commerce;  but  the 
passage  unavoidably  carries  the  idea  to  Uic  reader,  and  haa 
occasioned  some,  u  ho  have  not  well  examined  the  subject, 
to  believe  that  the  report  exhibits  a  proof,  that  "  France" 
in  the  language  of  Americus  •'  has  really  Uikcn  tlie  lead  in 
the  violation  of  neutral  lights." 

Lei  us  examine  the  evidences  we  possess,  with  serious, 
ntss  decency,  and  tlwt  candor,  w  Inch  the  sul-ject  demands. 
Ihere  is  among  the  records  of  the  department  of  state, 
and  m  the  British  and  American  collections  of  state  papers, 
clear  and  positive  evidence,  that  Kngland  had  deliberately 
matured  and  comsummated  die  system  of  violating  the 
neutral  commerce  above  six  \\eeks  before  the  French  dc 
creeol  the  9th  el  May,  1793,  and  this  too  in  die  most  un- 

precedenttd  manner.     Our  late  minister  in  London,  Mr. 
1 .  Pinckney,  communicated  to  our  secretary  of  state,  in 

his  letter  of  the  5th  July,  1793,  that  lord  Gicnvillc  iiadex- 

*  TTriyen  hy  A.  Hftijiilton  E"]iiiir. 


r 


i 


^\ 


8 

piicWly  ftiul  unrescTvedly  avmvw!,  th-tt  the  c«pturf«  of 
ncmrnl  vcsncU,  as  dircclcd  by  ihc   British  order  ollhc  Hth 
Tunc    1 79J,  to  th.it  cud,   were  fully  umlcrntood  by  both 
RuhhU  and  Great  Brituin,  to  Ix-  wifhiu   tin-   intc.iMon  of 
the  convention  tictwecn  them,  which  wa-i  sinned  by  thoic 
two  KovernmcntH  at   London,  on  thca>thtlay  of  Mirch 
1793      Vmm  the  very  extraordinary  nature  of  that  con. 
vcntion  lK-tweci»  Kussia  an  I  (i.eal  Britain,  from  the  div 
tance   l)ctwect»   Pctersburj;  and    Iv.ndon,  and   In.n.   the 
season  of  the  year,  it  cannot  l)e  doubted,  that  this  >'J^P;>''t''[;' 
contract,  which  was  mutually  signed  on  the  2  .th  "f  J^'lf^^ 
1791    must  have  Incn  orimiiafcd  in  the  autumn  of  17J2, 
by  the  Kmnrcss  and  the  British  kin<<.     In  ihe  corrcspon- 
dcnce  between  our  sccrctiry  of  State  and  our  Muustcr  in 
London,  wc  do  not  perceive  the  least  suggcHtion  of  the 
influence,  ai  an  example,  of  the  trench  decree  of  the  9th 
of  M IV     179  J.     Su.h  a  pica  c.niltl  not  uuloc<l  poi-.iMy  tJC 
n  ulc  b    lordGi-envillc.  who  knew  and  avowed,  thatCreat 
Britain  had  previously  bound  herself  by  a  solemn  compact 
with  Russia    to  observe  the  very  c.jnduct,  of  which  the 
era    powers   complained.     Lord   Grcnvillc,   and  the 
British  minister  then  resident  here  (MrHammond)  have 
In  their  written  communications,   uniformly  pretended, 
hat  it  was  regular  and  right,   under  the  law  ot  nations. 
The  British  government,  no  doubt,  gave  their  prior  order* 
to  the  conunauders  of  their  ships,  us  soon  as  the  o.wentioa 
with  Uussia  was  signed,  that  IS,  m  March,  1.9^;   and  it  is 
Z^  presunud,  that  the  known  detentions  ^^  ";:^  ;«' ^^  'f '« 
in  the  British  ports,  so  earh  as  the  aiitumn  of  I ,  !>2,  and  the 
Splures  of  nLtml  vessels,  which  the  Frend.  government 
assign  as  the  justifying  reasons  of  their  ac  of  May   17  '3. 
t^rfmade  in  consequence  of  the  negociation  and  com- 
pktion  of   that  convention  and  of    those   first  oders 
in  confirmation  of  these  suggestions,    we  fi^lj^f  V^^ 
French  minister,   M.  Chauveli-i,  in  Londo.i,  strongly  re- 
mo^tra^l,  in  November  I79i,  against  the  detention  of 
Tu     rves;els  in  the  British  ports,  laden  ^v.th  fjain   «s 
contrary  to  the  law  of  nations,  and  to  the  ex.sung  t  ca^ 
of  1786,  nay,  even  as  contrary  to  the  laws  of  hnglanO. 
The  B?.ish  ministry  actually  applied  for  an  .ndemnUy  U> 
parliament.    These  facts  followed  by  the  captures  of  neu- 


ihe  capture*  of 
h  order  of  Uic  Hth 
icItTHtoo'l  by  both 

thr  imcuMnn  of 
i  hignetl  by  tliosc 
Sth  tlay  of  M  irch 
atiirt*  of  that  con- 
uin,  from  the  i\\%- 
n,  aiul  from  the 
hut  thM  important 
he  2  uh  of  Miirch, 

luiiumii  of  1792, 
III  ihc  corrcspon- 
1(1  our  Miuistcr  in 
sugi^fi'stiou  of  the 
decree  of  the  9th 
iiidec<l  poH-iitjIy  t>c 
ivovvcd,  thutdrcat 
a  solcmu  compact 
ict,  of  which  the 
irenvillc,   uud  the 

Hammond)  huve, 
formly  pretended, 
he  law  of  nations, 
c  their  prior  orders 
J  us  the  convention 
;h,  IT9U   and  it  is 
IS  of  neutral  vessels 
in  of  1792,  and  the 
Mcnch  jijoveniment 
•actof  May,  17'>S, 
5ociaiion  and  com- 
thosc   first  orders. 
,    we  finil  that  the 
)n(lon,  strongly  rc- 
ist  the  detention  of 
iilen  with  p^ain,  as 

the  existing  treaty 
e  laws  of  K.nf;land. 
for  an  indemnity  to 
the  captures  of  neu- 


(     »     ) 

tral  veaacln,  after  the  French  minl»iter  wm  ortlcrcd  from 
L<jndou,  on  the  24lh  of  January.  1793,  and  prior  to  the 
Ruiaian  convention  ( March  25, 'l 793)  with  the  uvowetl  de. 
•ign  ami  meaning  of  the  convention  iKtween  KnglantI  and 
Russia,  manifest  an<I  establish  a  system,  on  the  i)ort  of 
Great  Briuiin,  long  premeditated,  dclilKrrateiy  l)cg»uj  and 
continued,  and  ultunatcly  confirmetl  by  a  solemn  enga«- 
ment  witli  the  powerful  court  of  Kussia,  all  prior  to  the 
French  decree  of  May  1793.  The  French  minister  m 
U)ndon,  o|)cnly  remonstrated  against  the  earliest  of  these 
measures  of  tlic  British  government,  us  calculated  to  pro- 
duce a  famine,  on  the  7th  January,  1793.  (State  pn|)crs, 
page  235).  It  is  very  imjwrtant  to  remark  that  M.  Talley- 
rand  (the  Prince  of  Benevcnto),  who  is  now  the  minister 
of  foreign  affiiirs  in  France,  was  then  in  London,  as  the 
authorised  and  confidential  director  of  M.  Chauvelin.  He 
was  also  in  this  country,  when  the  late  president  Wash- 
ington  made  his  honest  demurs  to  the  provision  article  of 
the  Britisli  treaty  of  1794. 

The  British  orders  of  the  0th  June,  arc  expressly  called 
by  themselves,  ••  adiHtional  instructions".  The  English 
secretary  of  state  made  pretentions  to  a  right  to  adopt  such 
measures,  in  his  ncgociationa  with  our  envoy  (Mr.  Jay,) 
and  in  the  formation  of  the  treaty  of  1794  with  the  United 
States.  It  is  not  perceived,  therefore,  in  what  manner  the 
French  decree  of  May,  1793,  can  hnvc produced  this  con- 
duct of  Great  Britain. 

Certainly  France  acted  an  unwarrantable  part  towards 
us  and  the  other  neutrals,  in  her  decree  of  May,  1793. 
But  having  an  immense  population  to  support,  and  with 
a  prodigious  band  of  sailors  and  soldiers  to  feed,  almost 
completely  shut  in,  on  the  land  side,  by  the  hostile  Neth- 
erlands, Germany,  Italy  and  Spain,  expecting  no  grain 
from  the  swarmmg  hives  of  Switzerland,  and  closelr 
watched  by  the  inimical  fleets  of  Russia,  Sweden,*  Hol- 
land, England,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  the  Italian  o.ates,  her 
just  artdjounded  ApTpiTchensiom  of  a  ruinous  and  distracting 
famine^  appear  to  have  been  quickened  by  the  instances  of 
capture,  some  of  which  are  particularised,  and  others  of 

*  The  iMt  Wng  ot  imdn  wu  tciy  unfriendly  to  the  reroluiton  in  France. 
aUUadrtth 


Sr 

4 


C  10  ^ 

■ifrhich  art  expressly  though  generally  noticed,  in  the  de- 
cree  of  ihe  convention*.  Although  these  circumstances 
arc  absolutely  insufficiait  to  justify  France  they  afford  adc- 
gree  and  kind  of  extenuation  for  \\tr  following  the  empress 
of  Russia  and  England,  which  those  powers  cannot  plead 
for  their  prior  and  leading  acts,  and  for  the  captures  and 
detentions  anterior  to  and  during  the  pre-existenoe  of  their 
convention.  That  we  considered  the  conduct  of  Great 
Britain  at  the  time,  as  under  all  circumstances,  by  much 
the  most  exceptionable,  must  appear  certain  from  ouir 
sending  a  special  cnvojr  to  London  m  1794,  and  not  send- 
ing one  to  Paris.  This  observation  appears  the  more 
natural  and  reasonable,  because  we  had  sesident  ministers^ 
in  1793  and  1794,  at  both  places:  Mr.  G.  Morris  in 
France,  and  Mr.  Pinckney  in  London.  The  object  of 
these  papers  is  not  at  all  to  justify  the  spoliations  committed 
by  France,  nor  is  it  wished  even  to  extenuate  them  in  the 
smallest  degree.  That  any  comparative  ideas  have  been 
admitted  into  this  investigation,  is  merely  because  they 
unavoidably  arise  in  a  free  discussion  of  the  subject.  To 
ascertain  that  any  particular  measure  is  not  of  a  certain 
alleged  nature,  it  majr  be  useful  and  necessaiy,  to  deter- 
mine of  what  nature  it  really  is.  If  fears  of  femine,  and 
of  a  concert  to  produce  it,  both  which  now  appear  to  have 
been  well  grounded;  and  if  the  influence  of  English  and 
Ruiisian  examples^  have  led  France  to  adopt  a  cul;>able  and 
unjust  measure  towards  us ;  still  it  appears  true,  and  it  is 
important  in  this  investigation,  that  there  really  is  a  num- 
ber of  most  serious  and  premeditated  instances  of  the  evil 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  prior  to  the  French  decree  of 
May,    1793. — ^The  contracting    parties,   £i^|^d  arid 

*  It  hu  been  alreadj  obMired.  that  M.  Chauvelin,  the  FrefieJi  minUter,  pw- 
ticuluAjr  grounded  » |Mut  uf  hit  remonstrance*  to  Lord  Grenville  in  Nowmber, 
1793.  upon  the  tendency  of  the  British  measurea  to  produce  famine  or  the  fear 
of  it  in  France.  The  memorial  of  the  Enriish  minister.  Lord  Anidand,  to  the 
Dutch  Rovemment  (April  5,  1793)  holds  up  famine,  as  a  calamity  about  to 
afflict  France,  he  knowing  tliat  the  Russian  convention  had  been  aigned  in 
London,  eleven  dava  before— and  the  empress  of  Rusua,  in  July,  179S,  infbrmed 
the  court  of  Sweoen,  that,  in  consequence  of  an  arrangement  tirade  with  hia 
Britannic  majeaty.  slie  liad  given  lawless  insUvctions  to  the  commander  of  her 
"  fleet,  to  stop  and  compel  all  neutral  ships,  bound  to  or  fi«{giitedf6r  France. 
**  either  to  sail  back  or  enter  some  neutral  harbor."  Now  it  is  certain,  that  the 
convention  of  the  25th  March,  1793  was  the  only  arrauement,  that  was  exe* 
cuted  between  Kuasia  and  Snglaa^,  between  tkat  day  mm  July  30,  I79S. 


I         *>- 


iLTTT'  .Trxrr  .„ .- 1.,-^; 


^fm^xnm 


loticed,  inthede- 
ese  circumstances 
e  they  afford  a  de^ 
min^  the  empress 
wers  cannot  plead 
'  the  captures  and 
■existence  of  their 
conduct  of  Great 
stances,  by  much 
certain  from  our 
'94,  and  not  send- 
ippears  the  more 
csident  ministers., 
Ir.  G.  Morris  in 
The  object  of 
iations  committed 
nuate  them  in  the 
e  ideas  have  been 
:rely  because  they 
the  subject.  To 
i  not  of  a  certain 
cessary,  to  deter- 
rs  of  femine,  and 
[>w  appear  to  have 
e  of  English  and 
opt  a  cu!;>able  and 
!ars  true,  and  it  is 
R  really  is  a  num- 
stances  of  the  evil 
Fr^ch  decree  of 
;s,  Eng^d  and 

le  French  minister,  pur- 
Grenville  in  Nowmber, 
idiicc  famine  or  tho  fear 
r.  Lord  AnhJand,  to  the 
u  a  caUmity  abiout  ta 
ion  had  l>een  signed  in 
i,  in  July,  1793,  iniSwrned 
igement  awde  with  hi* 
to  the  conmuuiderof  her 
or  frei^ted  fdr  France, 
ow  it  is  certain,  tha^  the 
Muement,  that  was  exe« 
od  July  30, 1793. 


(      11      ) 

Russia,  bound  themselves  to  use  all  possible  means  with 
the  neutral  states  to  prevent  their  accustomed  and  lawful 
commercial  intercourse  with  France; — from  which,  among 
other  things,  that  republic  drew  many  of  the  comforts  and 
necessaries  of  life,  and  the  neutrals  drew  just  and  fair  ad* 
vantages  to  the  farmer  and  merchant. 

It  IS  of  the  utmost  importance  that  we  have  the  explicit 
declaration  of  Lord  Grenville,  that  it  was  in  execution  and 
fulfilment  of  this  convention  of  March,  1793,  that  the 
British  additional  orders  of  the  8th  of  June,  1795,  were 
issued.  The  English  secretary  of  state  did  not  allege,  or 
even  intimate,  that  the  French  Order  of  the  9th  of  May  was 
the  cause.  He  knew  Great  Britain  had  previously  thereto, 
committed  detentions  of  neutral  vessels  with  grain,  and 
had  commenced  depredations  on  neutrals,  in  the  manner 
set  forth  in  the  French  declaration  of  war  in  February  and 
in  the  decree  of  the  convention  of  the  9th  May,  1793— and 
he  therefore  plainly  assigns  the  Briti^  concert  with  Russia, 
and  a  p.^tended  authority  from  the  law  of  nations,  as  the 
ti:ue  and  only  causes;  and  it  is  upon  this  British  and 
Russian  pretence,  that  the  provision  article  of  our  treaty 
proceeded  on  the  part  of  the  English.  Even  injured  and 
reluctant  America  was  induced  or  compelled  to  yield  to  this 
new  and  illegitimate  system  of  England  and  Russia,  It 
schema  particularly  worthy  of  remembrance,  that  Lord 
Cvrenyille  also  alkged,  that  Spain  would  act  as  England 
had  done,  in  regsurd  to  the  neutrals— and  we  know  that 
Spain  did  act  accordingly*,  in  the  course  of  the  year  1793. 
We  dierefore  clearly  owe  our  spoliations  by  Spain,  to  the 
support,  influence,  and  pursuasions  of  EngUuid  Qjfi^  t\^ 
empress  of  Russia,  in  pursuance  of  the  extraordinary  con^ 
vention  entered  into  by  diem  in  March,  1793.— A  pp^- 
vention,  which  is  not  only  calculated,  by  its  dreadful  e^- 

*  A  treatv  was  made  by  Great  Britain  with  Spun,  in  the  very  terms  of  the 
^  Rusuan  and  British  convention :— Also  with  Austria  and  Prussia  Tbu  doctrine, 
to  it^wrimu  to  tie  trade  «/"  tbe  neutral  pcmert,  ba§,  therefore,  by  the  zealoue^and 
hoetile  pnemretnent*  tf  Great  Britain,  been  exiemied  tbrqiighout  the  council*  of 
Eurcf.  France,  even  in  hef  most  extreme  moments,  has  certainly  been  less 
'  active  inreci|irocaUiw  it|  fbr  with  all  herinfluence  over  the  Dutch  anfl  Spanish 
councils,  we  do  not  find  that  stopping  ^  neutral  vesseU  bound  to  Enelahd,  haa 
beeh  committe4  by  either  Holland  or  Spain.  Even  the  French  decwe  of  No* 
veittber,  1806,  ia  short  of  the  moiistroqa  British  convention  of  |793i  whicb 
4F9laivs  «w  •ftiBBt  a// tr«dc  bet  wera  ftnUGC  aad  tbe  neutral  countrtcfl, 


*i:'l' 


(     12    ) 

ample  and  obvious  tendencies,  to  bring  down  upon  France 
and  all  future  belligercn'.  nations  unprecedented  and  awful 
miseries,  but  to  inflict  upon  all  neutrals,  however  peaceful 
and  equitable,  the  suspension  of  their  ordinaiy  and  rightftil 
navigation,  the  prevention  of  the  sales  of  their  most  valua- 
ble commodities,  the  interception  of  their  supplies  of  foreign 
comforts  and  necessaries,  and  the  dependent  revenues  fiom 
exports  and  imports.  It  is  also,  too  well  calculated  to  cm- 
broil  neutrals  with  the  other  Belligerent  powers.  If  Por. 
tugal  should  be  involved  in  the  present  war,  England  acting 
upon  this  principle,  would  suspend  the  accustomed  and 
lawful  commerce  of  the  United  States,  with  nearly  all  the 
civilized  world ;  and  France,  invited  b^  these  examples 
from  1792,  and  prompted  by  notions  of  mterest  and  neces- 
sity, would  suspend  our  rightful  commerce  with  all  the 
rest.  In  these  views,  the  convention  of  1793,  between 
Russia  and  Great  Britain,  as  unreservedly  and  dearly  ex- 
plained by  Lord  GrenvHle  to  Mr.  Thomas  Pincknw,  is  a 
matter  of  the  most  serious  importance  to  the  United  States. 
It  is  the  real  and  illegitimate  foundationdf  all  the  neutral  suf- 
ferings. To  acquiesce  in  the  doctrines  and  principles  which 
are  its  avowed  basis,  must  go  for  to  destroy  the  merchant, 
the  fisherman,  and  the  manner,  aiid  must  deeply  wdund 
the  manufacturer,  the  plainer,  and  the  farmef.-  No  class 
of  citizens — no  description  of  property  can  cteape  the 
direct  evil,  or  its  immediate  consequjences. 

Upon  the  whole,  we  Cannot  feil  totecogni2e  the  British, ; 
as  tbe  real  devisers  and  originators  of  this-J^tld  schemejpf 
neutral  sacrifices.  The  writer  of  this  paper  will  only  ad^ , 
that  it  is  not  to  t^gravate  this  country  against  Gitiat  Bri- 
tain, that  this  publication  is  now  made,  but  t6  promote  a 
prudent  and  united  endeavor,  by  all  parties  in  America,  to 
terminate  British  irregularities  by  a  cahn,'  decent  and  de- 
termined  stand. 


No.  III. 

The  most  interesting:  considerations  appear  to  invite  to 
fiirther  temperate  and  caudid  discussions  of  this  subject, 
at  the  present  crisis.  Thb  brief  inverigation,  was  re- 
spectfully and  unresenrecBy  communicated,  in  the  eariy 


down  upon  France 
cedented  and  awful 
(,  however  peaceful 
rdinary  and  rightf\il 
>f  their  most  ralua- 
r  supplies  of  foreign 
ident  revenues  ft  om 
:11  calculated  to  em. 
it  powers.  If  Por- 
/var,  England  acting 
le  accustomed  and 
,  with  nearly  all  the 
bv  these  examples 
'  interest  and  neces- 
merce  with  all  the 
of  1793,  between 
»dly  and  dearly  ex- 
mas  Pinckney,  is  a 
\  the  United  States. 
afaU  the  neutral  suf« 
nd  principles  which 
itroy  the  merchant, 
must  decjJv  w6und 
farmef.'  No  class 
ty  can  ctea^ie  the 
ices.'";''  ■■  '  ■"■^ 
Bognii^e  the  Britlafi,  ■ 
us;^nd  scheme  of 
paper  will  only  a(HI, 
against  Gniat  Bii* 
e,  but  t6 'promote  a 
rties  in  America,  to 
ibn,' decent  andde. 


I  appour  to  invite  to 
ons  of  this  subject, 
res'igation,  was  re- 
cated,  in  the  eaily 


(    13    ) 

part  of  1797.  to  the  executive,  nearly  as  it »  P^n^i"  J* 
iwo  first  numbers,  with  the  writer's  name.  It  is  hoped,  that 
rd'oLrpmclenceand  c»ecency.^wa«ls  ihegovej^^ 
the  public  interests,  weiemamfcsted.  7^^'''^^^ 
deemed  at  all  proper  for  open  discussion  ^^  Aat  momei^ 
Yet  it  appeared  vJiy  haaardous  to  the  country,  that  it  w^ 
]oc^nKvith?olitical inconvenience;  fortheinc^ 

tion  of  Fiance,  in  a  case  clearly  and  »»?I^»<>"«»y^r»j2^ 
tlie  inculpation  of  England  as  *^''>''S'P^''!;''^Z^ 
made  in  America,  not  only  without  refutation,  butevai  to 

the  apparent  conviction  of  our  gove"»'"«"\  il°T»  T*^ 
dangS«cists,  and  the  Legislature  «^.P^JJ„ «f°J* J^ 
dete^ine  Uoon  important  measures,  the  frc^^^jj  ^ 
presi  iauadTto  lay  the  investigauon.  with  decency  antt 
moderation  before  them  and  the  countpr.  ^  .        . 

It  wiU  not  be  denied,  diattiw  British  P«^^TS^"2 
the  iSth  of  November,  one  thousand  seven  hundr^  and 
ninety  two.  and  the  accompanying  directions  of  that  go- 
Verhmenti  dieir  custom-houses,  did  P^venj;^^^^ 
piwlsion*  belongingtd  powers  at  peace  ^i*  f«  Ac  WOTU^ 
flt>nl  prtKxeding  tolFrance,  contrary  towhat  ^^^^ 
been  done  by  Se  English  statutes,  contrary  to  the  trencft 
SSJ/^d  tontitiiy  to  die  fiiith  and-  law  of  nations.^    It 
faS»ir^?th^^H  tiien  adieadful  war  fbrtiiepnnci- 
pl«»bf  liberty,  the  ^ght  of  intenofjotjm^^ 
Int^ty  of  tiiif  dominions,  betwe^  France  onthe  one 
oartTand  Austriji  and  Prussia  on  theuUier. 
-L  Ehgland  w^  not  formally  nor  actually  at  war^ 
^  k  neuLl  also  J  and,  tiiough  a  neutral  w.^h  numor^ 
treaties  of  peace  and cgmmeree,  she^acted  cont^  toti« 

rights,  as  wen  of  neutrality,  ^^T^^^^^^^^^^^J^^ 
iifintiruptingher  "sterneutrakin^hcirlawfta  ^ 
to  the  ports  of  belligCrtnt  France,  from  the  pcjts  of  peaceftU 
Britaiira?which&osfe  neutrals  had  touched,  or  in  whidi 

their  had  purchased  or  laden  "^^f^^V^i^^J^L 
natidns,  Mid  under  the  protection  of  the  British  statotes 
and  treaties.  TOs  conduct,  though  s^ng^y  compton^^^^ 
of  by  Fiance,  was  repeated^  until  and  after  M.  Ctouvelm  s 
last  itpreaentatibh,  on  the  7tii  of  January,  1793.  ^r^ 
friendly  vessels  of  France  were  similarly  treated  by  neutral 
England.    Thus  we  see,  that  England,  even  when  a  neu- 


i' 

1 


■  3 


«.«W!*«->«««»!teiiSA*SS»a«*.'S<WXiti«iSi 


f\ 


-■ ""liir- — -'•' — "••••' 


"1 


<  14  ) 


tral  power  herself,  so  early  as  1792,  promptly  violated  the 
rights  of  neutral  commerce,  in  open  defiance  of  the  law 
of  nations^  of  various  treaties  with  neutral  states  and 
France,  and  of  her  own  statutes!  The  ships  and  property 
of  France  (it  is  repeated)  were  treated  in  the  same  unwar. 
rantable  manner,  and  her  legislature  resounded  with  loud 
complaints.  7Zv  French  vnere  thus  early  ^  plainly ^  and  un» 
questionably  instructed  in  a  lawless  method  of  procuring  the 
tndispensible  staff  of  life^  at  the  expense  of  neutral  rights. 
But  It  was  pretended  by  American  apologists,  that  it  was 
a  measure  of  general  policy  in  the  court  of  St.  James,  to 
guard  against  a  scarcity  of  grain  in  Great  Britain.  Xhis, 
if  true,  would  only  prove,  that  England  promptly  violated 
the  neutral  rights,  to  guard,  by  anticipation,  merely  against 
a  possible  scarcity,  when  she  enjoyed  interior  order  and 
peace.-— The  original  high  charge  forcibly  recurs;  she  did 
thereby  set  the  fatal  example  of  violating  neutral  rights. 
It  was  several  months  before  France  followed  her  in  any 
fiimilar  measure,  though  urgtd  by  the  necessities  of  an 
internal  revolution,  and  by  foreign  war,  and  though  under 
the  actual  pressure  of  a  famine.  But  it  is  ipanifestly  not 
true,  that  diis  British  conduct  was  to  guard  against  scar. 
«ity  at  home  ;  for,  on  Uie  15th  November,  grain  was  de- 
clared inadmissible  in  Liverpool,  at  die  low  duties,  and 
England  permitted  foreign  grain  to  be  freely  cleared  out  in 
1T92,  for  all  other  places  except  the  ports  of  France,  even 
to  supply  the  enemies  of  that  country,  while  she  ordered 
her  custom-  houses  to  refuse  its  exportation  to  France  alone. 
Will  it  be  said  that  England  excluded  grain  from  Liver< 
pool,  her  great  manufacturer's  provision  market,  and  per- 
mitted it  to  be  exported  to  all  her  own  friends,  and  to  all 
the  enemies  of  France,  in  order  to  prevent  a  deficiency  of 
subsistance  in  Great  Brirai  i  ?  But  the  reality  of  the  intention 
of  distressipg  Ffance  i:^  ''.ese  proliibitory  measures,  is 
indisputably  proved  by  the  English  refusal  to  permit  the 
exportation  Of  bl^kets,  cloths  and  cordage,  to  France,  in 
1792,  contrary  to  law  and  treaty,  which  actually  tc  ck  place. 
Perhaps,  however,  we  are  expected  to  believe,  that  it  was 
intended  to  feed  the  goqd  people  of  England  upon  ba|c 
goods,  iron  m»nu&9tures^  guq  powder  and  cordage. 


T 


Til 


I  ii^ 


romptly  violated  the 
tiefiunce  of  the  law 

neutral  states  and 
;  ships  and  property 
in  the  same  unvvar* 
esoundcd  with  loud 
r/y,  plainly  y  and  un* 
bod  of  procuring  the 
se  of  neutral  rights, 
ologists,  that  it  was 
Lirt  of  St.  James,  to 
reat  Britain,  ^his, 
id  promptly  violated 
Ltion.  merely  against 
1  interior  order  and 
ibly  recurs;  she  did 
ting  neutral  rights. 
followed  her  in  any 
be  necessities  of  an 
r,  and  though  under 
L  it  is  ipanifestly  not 
guard  against  scar, 
nber,  grain  was  de< 
die  low  duties,  and 

freely  cleared  out  in 
orts  of  France,  even 
,  while  she  ordered 
tion  to  France  alone. 
:d  grain  from  Liver- 
on  market,  and  per- 
n  friends,  and  to  all 
event  a  deficiency  of 
:ality  of  the  intention 
ibitory  measures,  is 
cfusal  to  permit  the 
rdage,  to  France,  in 
1  actually  tc  uk  place. 
>  believe,  that  it  was 

England  upon  bale 
:r  and  cordage. 


(    15    > 

We  have  been  told  that  France  did  not  complain  of  thfc 
English  stoppage  of  grain,  as  an  infraction  of  neutral  rights. 
This,  if  true,  would  not  alter  the  injurious  nature  of  the 
British  conduct.    It  was  most  natural  for  France,  who  was 
•t  war  w  ith  Austria  and  Prussia,  not  to  complain  as  a  ncu- 
tral,  but  to  remonstrate  as  she  did,  on  various  grounds, 
that  her  treaty  was  openly  broken,  and  that  tlic  laws  of 
England  were  deliberately  violated  to  injure  her  alone.  But 
she  went  further:  she  dechu-ed  on  the  7th  of  January, 
1793,  by  M.  Chauvelin,  her  resident  minister  in  London, 
to  Lord  Grenville,  that  England  had  broken  faith  with  all 
Europe;  that  foreign  merchants  had  Ijcen  induced  to  send 
their  cargoes  of  grain  to  British  ports  by  an  English  pro- 
clamation, dated  soon  after  the  15th  of  November,  1792, 
which  took  off  the  prohibition  from  foreign  grain ;  and 
yet,  that  their  foreign  grain  so  imported,  was  refused  a 
clearance  for  France  alone,  about  four  weeks  afterwards. 
M.  Chauvelin  treated  these  measures  as  highly  injurious 
and  offensive,  nay,  as  actually  hostile  to  France,  in  which 
he  was  perfectly  regular.     He  could  not  widi  propriety  go 
further  than  incidentally  to  make  a  general  representation 
of  a  breach  of  faith  in  regard  to  other  nations,  seeing  that 
they  all  had  ministers  on  the  spot.    This  criminating  re- 
presentation he  did  make  in  the  most  explicit  and  serious 
terms.     It  appears  that  Lord  Grenville  acknowledged,  on 
the  9th  of  January,  1793,  the  receipt  ofM.  Chauvelin's  re* 
presentation  of  die  7th,  about  the  British  measures  con- 
eemmg  grain.     He,  however  gave  no  other  reply  to  itci 
strong  and  solemn  complaints,  but  that  of  declaring,  that 
the  English  proceedings  about  the  exportation  of  grain, 
&c.  were  founded  on  political  motives  of  jealousy  and  un- 
easiness.     He  does  not  deny  one  of  the  facts  brought  for- 
ward  by  the  French  nor  pretend  that  they  were  measures 
intended  to  prevent  want  in  England*.     The  neutrals  re- 

Diipinr  the  time  of  the  tiansactions  we  ha%e  iiist  stated,  British  influence 
•mlcxampfe  were  euding  other  poweni  to  injure  France  and  the  ne«  rXta"es 

rSc!  tei^of'^r'S'"  '"'*^'"?  "r^ »»''V     Tl.e  litUh  State  of  E.no,«  and  AnnuU 
Register  of  179o,  recoid*  that  "  when  the  Ilriiish  ministry  laid  an  embartro  on 

f  .In?."'"  '."  »'•?  B"""''  P"""  /«*'>  ""V^  corn  for  />..,«.  the  Fre'^h  "^.1! 
eoisul..  and  residents,  at  Hamburgh.  Lubec,  Bremen.  S.^;.  contracted  for  corn 

'793,  to  ?he  inaj,'istr»t«B  •«  thosttoitio*,  cummandinff  then,  in  the  ni-.st  pe' 


j.:i.: 


I  U  5 


,  I* 


Mr 


,  I 


i     <l' 


4 


■■! 
'1 


(    16    ) 

fceived  no  compensation  for  the  past—nor  security,  for 
the  future.  On  the  contrary  the  British  government  havmg 
thus  early  and  thus  readily  adopted  this  conduct,  so  pal- 
pably and  extremely  ineguliu-  in  itself,  and  injurious  to  the 
Sowers  not  at  v,ar,  that  is.  to  their  sister  neutrals,  pursued 
It  till  the  French  diclaration  of  hostilities,  on  the  Ist  of 
February,  1793.  This  was  dated  on  the  verj'  day,  pre- 
viously  fixed  by  England,  for  sending  away  M.  Chauvelin, 
the  minister  of  France. 


No.  IV. 

Two  circumstances  of  great  delicacy  and  magnitude, 

which  took  place  as  early  as  the  I7th  of  August  and  the 

21st  of  September,  1792,  must  have  excited  the  attention 

of  the  French  nation  and  must  have  convinced  them,  Uiat 

tliev  were  soon  to  meet  a  zealous  enemy  in  the  king  of  En- 

eland.     A  communication  from  Mr.  H.  Dundas,  of  the 

17th  of  August,  1792,  to  earl  Gower,  the  English  minister 

at  Paris,  was  delivered  to  the  French  government,  from 

which  it  appears,  that  the  British  court  not  only  recalled 

their  minister  from  France,  on  account  of  die  events  of  the 

lOtli  on  the  plea  of  maintaining  neutrality ;  but  that  they 

plainly  announced  to  the  French,  who  were  entering  upon 

a  new  form  of  government,  that  any  act  of  violence  to  the 

.„„  _,_„-,    initMtIv  to  notify  the  French  miniittrt  to  depart  ia  two 

y^'^r'^F^Zd  is  ilw  tVhave  p«vi..u.ly  concurred  with  Pruf.i.  in  the 
Jluz  coSc«c;  "d  certSy  did  form/.n  1793.  .  tre.ty  with  PruMia^n 
theTen  teml.  "  tt.;  article  of  the  Ru«ian  convenUon.  on  which  we  have  seen 

'"'^hfjil'.^eTnSuSSS^^^^ 

..  le^^t^^eS  o  iSrUptW  Hamburgh  Jd  Ba.Uc  ve.«.l.  m  the'rvoy.^. 

"to  France"    And  that  when  the  French  national  »''"''«^"/'""  »'«=*~ ''A.^cK 
«iLu!^  thev  wve  ordem  to  rtop  the  Hamburgh,  Bremen.  Lubec.  and  Dutch 
u  '  aM  wubefbre  the  French  decree  of  May  9th,  1793,  and  greatly 
SLeJ to  bring"^^^^^^^^  of  all ve.nels  for  France    even  w.U, 

foS  wheal  by  "England,  in  December,  had  been  c""""'"""'^^,  "^^  ^« 
fS  minUtera  in  pirii  to  the  convention,  who  «"P«"«^»y  £.^«'*if/'i^ 

wMpoitponed  by  thi.  moderation  and  prudence,  ^'"/'^/Suhewuer.  had 
rfM  acts  towardi  Hamburg,  &c.  and  the  rtatiomngof  the  English  ««'**"•  l'~ 
XriLce  Here  we  may  perceive  are  more  o?  lie  early  and  real^g>^^ 
^Z  h^^ainqfcau***  of  the  decree  of  U»e  emperor  of  |rance  of  NoX™ 
K  whfch  howVer  does  not  prevent  our  trade  to  Great  Britain,  aad  if  there- 
(ore  far  short  of  the  British  precedents. 


-nor  security,  tor 
ovcmment  having 
1  conduct,  so  pal- 
nd  injurious  to  the 
neutrals,  pursued 
lies,  on  the  Ist  of 
he  ver}'  day,  prc- 
vay  M.  Chauvclin, 


y  and  magnitude, 
af  August  and  the 
(cited  the  attention 
mvinced  them,  that 
in  the  king  of  £n- 
i.  Dundas,  of  the 
he  English  minister 
government,  from 
irt  not  only  recalled 
of  the  events  of  the 
■ality;  but  that  they 
were  entering  upon 
It  of  violence  to  the 


minirttrt  to  deptH  m  two 
urred  with  Pruisit  in  the 
3,  a  treaty  with  Pruwia,  in 
ion,  on  which  we  have  seen 

1793  neutral  Britiah  cniiaer* 
iltic  veaaels  in  their  vojragca 
al  convention  heard  of  thia 
Bremen,  Lubec,  and  Dutch 
May  9th,  1793,  and  lyreatJy 
sselii  for  France,  even  with 
>een  communicated  by  the 
temperately  ordered  a  rein- 
the  iUbject.  Their  embargo 
a  Febniary,  when  the  Prua- 
of  the  Enpiah  cruizem,  had 
tbe  tarty  and  real  btgtnning* 
eror  of  Fnmce  of  November 
Great  Britain,  ud  i*  tliciC' 


(     17     ) 

late  French  royal  family,  would  excite  the  British  indica- 
tion, with  that  of  all  huroiKf.     The  French  publishcti  the 
case  of  the  British  nation  against  k\x\\r  Charles  the  first,  as 
a  prt'cedcnt,  jtistifying  the  trial  of  a  kiiifr.     Anotlur  com- 
munication  was  made  from  Knfrlandou  the  2ith  Sentem. 
bcr,    1792.  through  their  minister  at  the  Ha^ue,  to  the 
Dutch  government,  which  appe.us  to  be  a  part  of  a  p  an 
or  course  of  measures  of  Kn-rland,  and  other  po\^•cl -^  then 
neuter,  avowedly  to  be  direcfecl  ag  linst  all  those  persons, 
Who  might  participate  in  such  acts  against  the  late  roval 
famdy  of  France.     These  fiots,   though  in   them,eU'es 
merely  political,  must  have  occasioned  France  to  see,  that 
those  measures,    which   srxjn  oecuned,  concerning  the 
neutral  trade  (taken  before  the d,  cree  of  frittrnity,  and  be- 
fore  the  affair  of  the  Scheldt,)  were  founded  in  a  dcciJed 
nostihty  to  a  republic  in  their  country*. 
^  It  has  been  already  mentionetl,  that  a  separate  an-l  sne. 
cial  remonstrance  against  those  measures  con(  erning  grain 
clothing,  &c.  was  mack  by  the  French  minister,  dared  in 
London  on  die  7th  of  January,  1 793.     It  concludes  xvith 
an  expostulation  of  the  most  serious  nature,  such  as  cor. 
responded  with  the  deepest  solicitude  for  the  bread  of  a 
whole  nation    with  the  apprehensions  of  famine,  and  of 
those  irrcsistable  tumults,  which  famine  might  be  cxiH^cted 
to  produce,  in  the  midst  of  a  great  revolution.     It  uas 
obvious,  that  peace  could  exist  but  a  very  short  time  be- 
twcen  the  two  countries,  after  this  deportment  on  the  patt 
ot  the  Lnghsh  government;  and  M.  Chauvelin  was  ar. 
cwdingly  forced  to  depart  from  London,  by  their  order  of 
Hie  24th  of  January,  on  eight  days  notice. 
.uJ^*"  French  government  mention,  among  the  causes  of 
the  war,  which  took  place  on  die  first  of  Fcbruarv    1793 
that  the  cal)inet  of  St.  James  had  endeavored  to  obstruct 
Uie  different  purchases  of  com,  and  other  supplies  made 
by  the  trench  c.ti2ens,  or  by  the  agents  r,f  the  Freneh 
republic;  that  the  same  court  laid  an  embargo  upon  (divers 
vessels,  including  neutrals,  and  boats  laden  with  corn  for 
France ;  while,  contrary  to  the  French  treaty  of  1786   the 
exportation  of  corn  was  permitted  toother  countries;' and 

the'  Ernfhtt «'  """'*'  '■'^'*'  "°* '"  '^^^"'^  *'"^^''^"'  '^'^^  ^  "-^t«"> 


i    io    ) 

lliat  t!ie  same  court  ha<l  dravrn  in  the  tieulral  stadt-holder 
to  ol)!»tructcxportations  liom  Holland  for  France. 

'Jhc  ilrcatllul  scheme  of  reducing  the  whole  French 
people  to  the  terms  of  the  combined  powers  by  famine,  at 
tltc  cxpencc  of  neutrals  rights,  was  manifestly  in  a  course 
of  negociation  duiiug  all  this  time.     For,  from  the  15th 
of  November,  1792,  when  the  British  first  interrupted  the 
exportation  of  grain  to  Fnmcc,  until  the  25th  of  March, 
179  i,  whcti  Lord  (;rcnvillc,  (who  communicated  with  M. 
Chau'velin)  signed  the  Russian  convention  in  London,  there 
were  only  fouV  inonihs  and  ten  days.     A  new  and  deep 
laii  scheme,  which  was  to  concentre  the  views  of  two 
remote  and  great  nations,  against  the  power,  die  politics, 
and  the  very  subsistence  of  France,  and  neutral  nghts 
couid  not  be  matured,  even  in  that  time,  without  the  most 
w  ilUiig  dispositions,  in  both  the  contracting  parties.  The 
1  lesinnption  is  raihcr,  that  iMigland,  who  has  long  suf- 
fcrcd  the  uiicontradicted  assertion,  that  she  had  engaged  m 
March,  1793,  in  the  Pibiitz  confederacy,  was  maturmg  the 
plan  ol  famine,  at  the  cxpencc  of  neutral  rights,  through 
the  summer  of  1792;  seeing  that  she  unlolded  it  so  clearly 
in  liic  middle  of  No\  ember,  of  that  year.     Be  this,  how- 
ever,  us  it  may,  after  time  sufficient  to  mature  it,  she  put 
the  last  finishing  hand  to  the  convcMtion  of  Russia,  on  the 
23th  of  March,  179.),  and  announced  it  openly  in  the  Lon- 
don newspapers  of  that  day.     Lord  GrcnviUe  has  given  us 
the  true  sense  and  real  object  of  a  part  of  that  convention. 
It  was,  that  Russia  and  England  bound  themselves  to  make 
such  violations  of  neutral  rights  as  the  English  made  under 
their  additional  orders  of  June,  1795;  which  were  the  Mime 
kind  of  violations,  as  the  English  had  previously  made  ot 
their  own  accord,  between  the  beginning  of  the  war,  and 
the  date  of  the  Russian  convention.     The  detentions  and 
obstructions  of  the  French  commerce  of  grain  by  England, 
from  the  1 5th  of  November,  1 71^2,  till  Uie  war  in  Februar>', 
were  as  similar  in  their  nature,  design,  and  tendency,  as 
possible,  which  we  havealreadv  shown;  particularly,  as  to 
a  real  and  deep  injury  to  neutral  rights  and  commerce.  1  hey 
were  a  suitable  prelude  to  the       isian  convention,  and  to 
the  orders  of  June,  and  November,  1793,  and  M'ly,  1795. 
The  words  of  the  Russian  and  British  conventiOT,  upon 


^ 


l:f 


fral  stacU-holder 
France. 

whole  French 
rs  by  famine,  at 
:stly  in  a  course 
,  from  the  15th 
;  interrupted  the 
25th  of  March, 
inicatcd  with  M. 
in  London,  there 
V  new  and  deep 
ic  views  of  two 
Acr,  die  politics, 
(I  neutral  rights 
■vithout  the  most 
ing  parties.  The 
lo  has  long  suf- 
L-  had  engaged  in 
was  maturing  the 
(rights,  through 
)lded  it  so  clearly 
.    Be  this,  how- 
laturc  it,  she  put 
3f  Russia,  on  the 
ipcnly  in  the  Lon- 
ville  has  given  us 
f  that  convention, 
emselves  to  make 
iglibh  made  under 
ich  were  the  same 
reviously  made  of 
g  of  the  war,  and 
lie  detentions  and 
grain  by  England, 
:  war  in  Februarj', 
and  tendency,  as 
particularly t  as  to 
d  commerce.  They 
convention,  and  to 
J,  and  May,  1795. 
conventipn,  upon 


(     19     ) 

which  the  violations  of  neutral  rights  arc  grotmdrd,  arc 
that  the  Britii>h  am!  Hussians  ••  tt.g;igf  to  unite  all  tlicir 
efforts  to  prevent  other  powers,  not  imj)ii.atcd  in  iJjis  war 
[I.  e.  neutrals]  from  giving,  directly  or  iiulirettly,  any 
protection  whatever,  in  consequence  of  their  n< utrality.  to 
the  commerce  of  the  French,  upon  the  seas,  or  in  the  ports 
ot  France."     The  commerce  of  provisions  U  notoriously 
the  greatest  branch  of  the  c(inimerce  of  the  world,     'i'he 
iTench,  in  i)eace  and  in  the  war  with  Knglan.l,  and  the 
neutrals  had  iK-en  grossly  attacked  itr  d.at  branch  of  com. 
merce,  from  Noveml>er,  17<)2,  to  the  date  of  the  Uussian 
convention.      The  English  treaty.makcr,  himself,  Lord 
ijix'nvillc,  had  avowed,  ihat  the  intrnuption  of  the  Freneli 
and  neutral  mtercourse  in  provisions,  was  includifl  in,  and 
was  a  busi  ess  of  the  convention.     There  could  be  no 
room  for  doubts  about  the  injury  to  neutnl  inde,  which 
was  m  effect  retrosjiectively  sanctioned,  and  intended  to  be 
contmued  by  that  fatal  ami  unprecedented caxwiy^a. 

In  regaru  to  the  declaration  of  lord  Greriville,  it  really 
appears,  that  nothing  can  be  more  explicit.  Mr.  T.  Pinck- 
ney  was  officially  making  a  representation  a},rain.st  the  injn. 
nes  to  us  from  the  plan  of  operating  on  Fiance,  by  lu  utral 
detentions,  captures,  and  spoliations,  as  executerl  under. 
or  intended  bj.  the  British  June  orders.     Lord  Grcnvillc 
said,  that  Spam  would  pursue  the  English  line  ofeonduct 
that  IS,  would  violate  neutral  commerce,  and  that  Russia 
and  Lngland  had  previously  intended  it  bv  their  compact 
of  March,  179.J.     The  particular  case  of  that  business 
actually  in  discussion,  by  the  two  ministers,  was  the  June 
orders,  to  the  end  of  reducing  France  by  fimine,  by  inter, 
rupting  our  and  other  neutral  intercourse  and  commerce 
with  her.     It  follows,  logically,  that  if  the  convention  in- 
tended the  object,  the  execuUon  of  the  object  was  an  exc 
cution  and  fulfilment  of  the  convention.     Those  papers 
as  received  by  the  department  of  state  from  Mr.  Pinckney,' 
appear  to  afford  the  most  clear  and  positive  evidence,  th-it 
-ejigland,  by  a  treaty  requiring  months  to  digest  and  com- 
piete,  had  deliberately  matured,  in  March,  1793,  the  fatal 
system  of  violating  neutral  commerce,  in  a  manner  abso- 
luteiy  unlawfid,  and  most  pernicious  and  unprecedented, 
above  a  naonth  before  die  Frqiich  orders  of  May.    It  may 


^ 


f 


(    20    ) 

be  rcjTcniccI,  that  *hc  aUo  apiietirt  lo  have  eommencwl  ?t 
on  the  1.  th  ol  NhvuiiIkt,  1792,  and  ti)  have  pursued  it 
for  month >  alter,  hy  liir  own  uiiluuiul  und  Hcpurute  ucts, 
if<;j'ort'  Ht4ss  a  concurred. 

\V  f  were  toltl  that  the  mcnmirc,  as  once  settled  by  treaty, 
W'a&  iiguinvt  hiiulund,  und  in  oir  favor.  This  is  nut  at  all  the 
qucH'ion  with  Fiantc.  Tie  Duties  say  it  tuns  a  dread  of 
neutrality  even  to  treat  on  it.  It  in  not  hkcly,  however,  that 
n  nuiihiuf  is  on  the  whole,  against  Knplaudund  beneficial 
to  us,  wliiih  she  urged;  nay,  absolutely  forced  us  into; 
which  GUI  government  repiobated,  in  the  Englitih sense  of 
it,  in  ITV^^f  which  Knglish  sense  of  it,  the  lute  president 
Washington  honestly  denmrred  against  in  1795,  and  for 
which  he  refused  to  ratify  the  British  treaty,  until  he  should 
be  satisfied  that  a  measure,  which  he  supposed  the  English 
to  consider  as  an  execution  of  it,  was  countermanded  by 
ihcm.* 

The  measure  of  violating  the  commercial  rights  of 
America  will  plainly  appear,  to  any  candid  examinant,  to 
l)e  a  part  of  the  great  system  of  measures,  infracting  the 
rights  of  pacific  and  neutral  nations,  ailopicd  by  the  com- 
biiicd  pQ>vcrs  to  annoy  the  French  in  their  revolutionary 
stn  gglc.     We  know  that  the  revolution  was  odious  to 
llum  fiom  its  outset.     For,   in  the  month  of  August, 
1792,  Austria  and  Prussia,  the  two  leading  members  of 
the  combination  against  France,  declared  in  a  public  mani- 
festo, that  all  I'-urr  pe  had  beheld  the  French  revolution  with 
increasing  indignation  for  four  years;   that  is,  from  the 
fust  dawnings  of  liberty,  in  the  )ear  17i'b,  in  the  meeting 
of  the  '*  Notables;"  and  it  has  been  frequently  declared,  in 
the  course  of  the  measures  pursued  by  them,  tJbot  the 
French  vierc  not  entitled  to  the  ordinary  benefits  resulting 
from  neutral  intercourse,  with,   what  they  denominated, 
*•  regular   governments." — The  ministers  of  England, 
abroad,  have  gone  the  utmost  lengths  upon  this  subject. 
One  of  them,  Mr.  Drake,  declared  to  the  »*epublic  of 
Genoa,  in  179.'',   "that  in  the  present  war  against  the 
usurpers  of  the  supreme  power  of  France,  no  government 
can  declare  itself  neuter,  without  becoming  an  accomplice." 

•  tlie  Britiuli  renewal  of  the  order  to  «letain  provitinn  ve****!*  in  May,  1795, 
only  sismoDtliy  aftcrour  firilUb  treaty  «-as  ligncd  by  Mr.  Jay. 


eommeneecl  h 
ivc  purnued  it 
Kpurute  ucti, 

Itlcd  by  treaty, 

IS  nut  at  ull  the 

uit  a  breach  qf 

houcver,  tlwt 

und  beneficial 

orced  us  mo\ 

iigltHh  sense  of 

lute  president 

1795,  and  for 

until  he  slioidd 

cd  the  Entfliiih 

itermamled  by 

rcial  rights  of 
cxuminunt,  to 
infnictinf^  the 
;d  by  the  com- 
r  revolutionary 
uus  odious  to 
ih  of  August, 
g  members  of 
a  public  muni, 
revolution  M-ith 
It  is,  from  the 
in  the  meeting 
tly  declared,  in 
ihtm,  that  the 
mcfits  resulting 
'  denominated, 
s  of  England, 
3n  this  subject, 
he  republic  of 
var  against  the 
no  government 
in  accomplice." 

t%v\%  in  May,  1795, 
r.  Jay. 


(    21    ) 

The  annals  of  the  world  eannot  pretUiee  an  equal  outraK 
upon  neutral  rights.  It  is  an  appropriate  preamble  to  /2c 
immente  vo/unie  of  their  illcgitinute  auli-iicutrui  ordcr»  of 
council. 

So  early  as  the  23d  of  May,  1793,  when  the  British 
ortkrsof  Jinic  did  not  exist,  Lord  Hurvey,  the  British 
minister  at  Florence,  <leclnred  in  a  letter  to  the  Tuscan 
prime  minister,  that  the  continuance  of  the  neutrality  of 
the  grand  Duke  of  Tuscany  would  depend  u|)on  the  opi- 
nions of  the  combined  powers,  concerning  the  inconvc- 
jiiencc  arising  to  them  from  the  itnmense  supplies,  which 
were  drawn  from  Tuscany  to  supply  France.*  A  largo 
fleet  of  grain  ships  had  suik-d  for  Toulon  eleven  days  be- 
fore. The  same  lord  H.irvey  commimicated  circular  letters 
to  the  Hnssian  and  ull  other  foreign  ministers  residing  at 
Florence  (the  vrrv  scat  of  the  neutral  Tuscan  government) 
informii.g  them,  that  he  had  announced  toUic  grand  duke  the 
exjiectcd  arrival  of  a  great  British  and  Spanish  fleet  in  those 
seas,  with  a  view  to  learn  the  effect  upon  the  duke's  known 
neutrality,  and  of  pnxlucing  a  departure  from  that  neu- 
trality. Lord  Harvey  continued  to  observe  to  the  Russian 
minister,  that  the  grand  duke's  reply  (aMirin^  to  Neu- 
trality) was  incompatible  with  the  designs  and  interest  of 
Europe.  He  then  states  the  conduct  of  the  duke  as  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  the  principal  po\»ers  of  Europe,  and 
says,  that  he  doubts  not,  that  it  is  thought  necessary*  **  to 
guide*'  that  neutrality,  in  a  manner  more  suitable  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  times,  and  to  the  view  s  of  the  powers 
allied  against  France. 

Here  we  sec  an  inferior  British  minister,  prepared  no 
doubt  by  previous  instructions,  so  early  jui  May,  1793, 
with  a  grand  British  and  Spanish  fleet  of  32  ships  of  the 
line,  assuming  to  forbid  legitimate  neutral  supplies  for 
France  to  be  made  by  an  independent  neutral  commercial 
prince,  at  a  court  distant  about  1500  miles  from  England! 
And  to  whom  does  the  English  minister  address  himself? 
To  the  /?//w/dtn  ambassador  there,  who  was  some  thousands 
of  miles  from  his  Empress,  and  who  gave  him  instantly  a 
concurring  reply.  Can  it  be  doubted,  then,  that  these 
ministers  were  acting  on  the  ground  of  the  Russian  and 
•  Thwe  are  very  far  short  of  wlmt  the  V.  Sutcs  could  fjiniih. 


';..' 


x^MMh 


(   «   ) 

BriMkli  conrention  of  March,  17M,  or  of  •  prior  undpr. 
lii.k   iHil  onlcni?   Were  they  not  prr venting  *  fk-utrtd 


tKi.vcr  irom  giving  protection  to  the  J4ll-itn|x)rt«uu  ircncb 
commerce  lor  *upplie»,  liy  reason  of  iu  neutrality  ? 

'nic»t«re  Jiomcof  the  numermntml  irresistible  cvitlencot 
of  this  irraiul  British  and  Husaian  »chcmc  of  neutnU  inju. 
lies.— We  nee  it  in  the  cmrturcs,  and  detentions  of  neutiml 
VCHiiels,  which  were  matlc  JKfoic  d»c  French  decree  of  thf 
9th  of  M.»y,  179J,  («)f  some  of  which  tlwt  decree  compkins) 
and  were  ii»  uctuul  execution  of  the  Husnian  convention, 
which  lonl  Grcnvillc  confesbCtl  to  be  a  part  of  the  same  plan, 
though  attempts  were  nude  here  to  deny  wlu»t  the  British 
maker  of  the  convention  asserts  he  himself  did!  Further 
evidence  is  to  lie  found  in  the  great  number  of  treatiea, 
which  England  made  and  procured  in  1793,  with  varioui 

K)wcr»,  in  the  unlawful  Icrnit.  or  nearly  hi  the  tcnns  of  that 
ussian  convcuiion,  which  was  tieclared  to  be  fulfiletl,  in 
regard  to  that  object,  by  ord*  r»  for  auch  captures  and  dc- 
tentions  as  we  complain  of,  and  as  the  British  additional 
ortlers  of  the  8th  of  June,  1791,  and  5th  of  May  1795, 
occasioned  to  be  extensively  re|)eated  upon  us.  A  still 
further  proof  is  to  liC  foimd  in  the  noticed  conduct  of  Great 
Britain,  in  the  Spring,  Summer  and  Fall  of  1793,  to  th© 
republic  of  Genoa,  and  the  grand  duke  of  Tuscany,  the 
latter  of  whom  was  given  to  understand  by  the  British 
ninistcr,  na  wc  have  seen,  that  the  great  supplies  he  fur- 
nished  France,  were  cause  of  offence  to  England  and  her 
allies,  and  by  his  being  ultimately  forced  by  the  English  to 
abandon  his  neutrality.     (Sec  Mr.   Pinckney's  letter  of 

1793.)  ' 

It  ought  to  be  candidly  and  well  remembered,  that 
France  made  ht  r  decree,  so  that  •(  was  to  cease  whenever 
neutral  provisions  should  be  exempted  from  seizure  by 
her  enemies;  and  she  did  not  pretend  to  confiscate,  as 
prize,  as  England  now  docs,  the  neutral  property.  Great 
Britain  could  terminate  the  French  irregularities  whenever 
she  would  become  regular  herself. 


^ 


(  sa  ) 


I  prior  um^. 
Uiitg  »  rtfutral 
KMiiutt  French 
iralily .' 

tiblc  cvitiencot 
r  neutral  inju. 
ions  of  neutnd 
\  (Icct  tx-  of  th^ 
rcccoinpkins) 
in  convention, 

the  same  plan, 
tut  the  Uritinh 
f  did!  Further 
icr  of  treatiei, 
(,  with  various 
le  terms  of  that 
I  be  fulfiled,  in 
iptufcs  and  dc- 
tish  additional 
of  May  1795, 
n  us.  A  still 
induet  of  Great 
)f  179 J,  to  the 

Tuscany,  the 
by  the  British 
upplies  he  fur- 
nglund  and  her 
■  tlic  English  to 
ncy's  letter  of 

lembcrcd,  that 
;ea»c  whenever 
'»in  seizure  by 
»  confiscate,  as 
opcrty.  Great 
rilies  whenever 


No.  V. 

Pair  and  icrious  opjKaJs  to  the  V^m'  of  justice  and  peack? 
will  receive,  it  is  believed,    (Uk    attention  in   America, 
wherever  thrv  circulate.     If  enli^htined  public  opinion 
shoidd  contribute  to  influence,  unhout  [wssion  or  disor- 
dcr,  honest  errors,  evil  designs  or  dungirous  prtiudicc!),  it 
must  be  deemed  in    liieslimablc  result  of  the  wisdom  and 
virtue  of  the  people.    It  has  Inen  shewn  that  Great  Britain 
really  began,  in  the  autumn  of  179 J,  the  sysieni  of  en. 
croachmcnt  ujKjn  the  rights  of  iicutnil  nations,  and  that 
she   maintained  and  pursued   that   system   through   the 
months  of  November  and  Deccmlicr,  I7l'2,  nnd  thrtnigh 
the  months  of  January,  February,  March  and  April,  and 
until  the  decree  of  the  French  convention  of  tlie  9th  of 
May,  179 J.     We  know,  that  it  was  confirnicd  us  to  Eu- 
ropean France,  by  lier  orders  of  June,  179J,  and  in  regard 
to  all  the  colonics  ol  France,  in  November,   179,1.     We 
ought  to  be  sensible,  that  diis  British  plan  brought  upon  us 
numerous  Sjianish  captuns    nd  spoliations,  by  means  of  a 
treaty  to  tlut  end,   made  by  Spam  and  I'.ngland  early  in 
1793.     Wc  ought  particularly  to  consirjcr  these  positive 
evidences  before  us,  that  Great  Britain  was  the  real  and 
principiil  cause  of  bringing  on  us  the  late  injurious  conduct 
of  republican  France.    For,  when  a  great  belligerent  pow. 
er,  like  Englahid,  applies  zealously  and  unremittingly  to 
all  the  other  enemies  of  France,  and  to  all  neutrals,  to  con- 
«ur  in  or  countenance  such  an  unprece<lenied  scheme  of 
destructive,  unauthorized,  and  unjust  warfare,  itisimpos. 
aible  to  prevent  the  rising  of  the  most  powcriiil  and  irregu* 
lar  passions  in  France  against  England,  and  those  uho  in 
any  wise,   counteiwnccd  this  fatal    Fnglish  and  lUissian 
measure.     The  happy  and  honest  prudence,  which  wa4 
observed  on  the  same  occasion  b}'  the  intelligent  director 
ef  the  councils  of  Denmark  (the  late  count  Bernstoft)  well 
merits  our  attention,  and  will  be  seen  in  the  lullowing 
extract  from  his  reply  to  the  British  communication  of  the 
oppressive  and  ruinous  system,  to  which  their  additioniiF 
6rdersofthe  8th  of  June  1793,  avowedly  appertained.  The 
illustrious  and  virlnous  Dane  declared,  he  could  not  even 


\  i 


.I-' 


t 


n 


5t 


(     24    ) 

treat  upon  the  subject,  as  a  faithful  neutral;  and  then,  rc« 
pelting  this  monstrous  inroad  upon  neutral  rights,  by  rea. 
son,  by  justice,  by  humanity  and  even  by  the  former  con- 
duct  of  Great  Britain  herself,  he  thus  expressed  himself— 

*'  The  point  in  question"  said  count  Bcrnstorft',"  is  only^ 
**  with  respect  to  private  speculations  of  the  sale  ofuncon- 
**  traband  articles  of  produce  and  grain,  the  disposi\l  of 
'*  which  is  not  less  important  to  the  seller,  than  it  is  to  the 
"  buyer,  and  to  the  freight  of  the  vessels  of  a  nation,  whose 
**  chief  support  is  dependhig  on  the  advantages  they  reap 
'*  from  their  navigation  and  corn  trade.  If  it  be  permitted 
*•  to  iamish  blocked  up  ports  and  fortified  towns,  belong. 
**  ing  to  an  enemy,  /'/  does  not  appear  to  be  justice  in  the 
"  same  degree,  to  extend  sirnilur  misery  to  others,  vj/jo  are 
"  innocent;  and  e-cen  in  France^  there  are  provinces  that 
"  coidd  never  have  deserved  such  an  increase  of  misery  from 
**  the  hands  of  England  or  its  allies. 

*'  The  want  of  corn,  as  a  common  consequence  of  .'he 
"  want  of  a  supply  of  provisions,  is  not  so  extraordinary  a 
"  circumstance  in  France,  as  could  only  have  been  pro- 
**  tluced  by  the  late  events.  France  has,  at  all  times,  been 
"  obliged  to  draw  provisions  from  other  nations,  Africa, 
**  Italy,  and  America  supply  that  country  with  more  pro- 
'•  visions  than  the  Baltic.  Their  necessity,  in  applying  to 
'*  other  nations  for  provisions,  is  so  far  from  being  new, 
"  that  in  the  year  1709,  when  there  was  a  real  famine  in 
'•  France,  England  never  thought  of  making  use  of  such 
"  arguments  as  she  does  at  present. 

'*  On  the  contrary;  soon  after  Frederic  IV.*  was  en- 
"  gaged  in  a  war  with  Sweden,  which  kingdom,  as  well 
'*  as  France,  is  dependent  on  other  nations  for  the  supply 
"  of  provisions,  he  used  the  same  arguments  to  prevent 
**  the  supply  of  provisions  to  an  enemy,  in  order  by  those 
*•  means  to  subdue  him,  and  endeavored  to  apply  a  case 
"  to  a  whole  country,  which  is  only  applicable  or  justifia- 
*'  ble  with  respect  to  blockaded  towns  or  forts. 

"He  was  obliged  to  renounce  that  project,  on  account 

of  the  weighty  representations  made  on  that  subj^t,  by 
•*  other  courts  of  Europe,  and  particularly  by  that  ojGvecit 


ct 


•  Of  Denmark  in  tlic  lime  of  Qitcen  Anne»or  Sn|flan(>. 


■IIHllllM..,. 


5S»i 


I;  and  then,  rc« 
rights,  by  rea. 
the  former  con- 
;ssc(l  himself— 
nstorftV  isonly^ 
e  sale  ofuncon- 
the  disposiil  of 
than  it  is  to  the 
a  nation,  whose 
tagcs  they  reap 
f  it  be  permitted 
towns,  belong. 
e  Justice  in  toe 
others,  iv/joare 
•e  provinces  that 
'  of  misery  from 

icquence  of  .'he 
extraordinary  a 
have  been  pro- 
t  all  times,  been 
itions,  Africa, 
with  more  pro- 
f.  in  applying  to 
om  being  new, 
a  real  famine  in 
ing  use  of  such 

;  IV.*  was  en- 
ingdom,  as  well 
s  for  the  supply 
lents  to  prevent 
I  order  by  those 
to  apply  a  case 
;able  or  justifia- 
brts. 

ect,  on  accQunt 
that  subject,  by 
'  by  that  of  Great 

'  England 


(  as   ) 

•''■  fi:^;j:'"'  ""-^  "  --  P---i"'.  and  „>w 

orZiTs  ""  ""'""  '"""™"'"  upon  ritSftv' 

carry  ne  trade     If  ;«  ♦h«^^f  vcgciaoies — as  also  our 

the'vowXrinc  Pies  of  1^  F  "'T'"'^.  *S  ^'"'' '"  »"i"d 

subjected  to  the  mosTnalmMi^       '°  ''T"'^  ^'•^«^''  «"d 

provisions  going  ,o  unblockSdert  ik.*^     '°  "^^  """"^' 

No.  VI. 


.  i 


-I 


i^*^ 


\l 


t] 


;i 


1 


I 


(    26     ) 

each  order  for  the  seizure  of  neutrals  against  the  law  of 

Sns  and  as  the  orders  of  the  8th  of  June  1793,  were  has 

eSiatc;  and  further  as  the  frt^cjuent  passing  of  acts  of 

ndemnity  would  excite  the  attention  of  neutral  govern. 

"^tTandof  Englishmen,  ^ --'- 4^1X^7^,3^ 
tworecedented  cast  was  adopted  on  the  17th  of  June  i  /  JJ, 
vhichvvS  calculated,  by  an  insinuation  or  implication   to 
cover  the  British  orders  of  that  month  and  all  those  which 
Kn-land  might  chuse  to  make  during  that  war*.    The  «e. 
cuiive  and  judiciary  departments  of  Great  Bntam  had  la  d 
down  in  tlimostYormi,  -lem^n^l  open  manner,  befo^^^ 
i\m  whole  world,  in  the  case  with  Prussia,  of  the  bilesia 
1?  t^^  t  the  universal  la^v  of  nations  and  exiting  tr^^^^^^^^^ 
vcre  the  true  and  only  rules  to  govern  the  British  courts  of 
Xira  tv     and  that  the  crown  never  interfered    o  give 
£  or  lui^cSons  to  these  courts,  yet  an  act  of  Par« 
was  passed,  as  a  necessary  accompaniment  to  the  illcgit . 
rte^convention  with  Russia,  which  act  contained  the  foU 

^tairst  -  Provided  that  nothing  in  this  act  contained 
sha^l  be  con^^^^^^^  restrain  his  majesty,  his  heirs  or  sue 

cessors  Zmghing  such  further  rules  and  directions  from 
TmetoiZto  his  respective  courts  of  admiralty  and yjce 
1dm  rally  for  the  adjudication  and  condemnation  of  prizes, 
JZ^SJ^cIiy^h^  heirs  and  successors  widi  the  advice 
of  hfs  o^theii  v^y  council,  shall  be  thought  necessary  and 

^''Xe  convention  of  Britain  with  Russia  and  this  section 
of /hefr  law  of  1703,  which  J- exceed  m  prmcip^e  he 
'  French  decree  of  the  21st,of  November,  1806,  laia  inc 
wSe  commerce  of  all  neutrals,  as  a  devoted  sacrifice  on 
IhenltarTf  unlawful  power.  These  two  acts  of  ^nglaiid 
strul  Itthe  v^^^^^  of  Se  independence  of  our  country,  fo 
a  nation'd^^^^^^  floating  property  can  be  seized  and 

'concSned  upon  the  ground  of  t-eign.convenUo^^^^^ 
fnreiim  orders,  which  she  cannot  modify  or  restrain,  is, 
'r:^:Z^k  not  indepei^dent.     That^ -^0^  ^^^.^^ 
maintoins  its  station  among  the  powers  of  the  earth,  wnose 

.  This  Sec,i.m  and  .l.e  ndakion  by  fbe  BritUb  .Ion.  to  the  proposed  treaty 
of  December  1806  aie  nearly  connected. 
+  See  the  famous  c«=  of ..«  Silesialoan ix  large  and  tte  ab^act  herein. 


■•WPliiP»-*« 


nst  the  law  ol* 
1793,  were  thus 
issing  of  acts  of 
neutral  govern- 
'  a  singular  and 
hof  June  1793,  . 
r  implication,  to 
I  all  those  which 
var*.    Thecxc- 
Britain  had  laid 
I  manner,  before 
I,  of  the  Silesia 
existing  treaties 
British  courts  of 
itcrfered  to  give 
ict  of  Parliament 
U  to  the  illegiti- 
lontained  the  fol- 

this  act  contained 
his  heirs  or  suc- 
d  directions  from 
dmiralty  and  vice 
mation  of  prizes,, 
5,  with  the  advice 
»ht  necessary  and 

I  and  this  section 
in  principle,  the 
r,  1806,  laid  the 
voted  sacrifice  on 
0  acts  of  England 
f  our  country,  for 
an  be  seized  and 
conventions,  and 
ify  or  restrain,  is, 
hat  country  alone 
f  the  earth,  whose 

le  to  the  proposed  treaty 
jd  tlte  ftb*ract  herein. 


C    27    ) 

territories,  whose  flag,  whose  property  and  whose  people 
ore  completely  respected,  according  to  the  universal  law  of 
nations  and  to  her  own  treaties  voluntarily  made.     This 
Enj,dand  rightfully  demanded  of  all  the  world.     Let  all  the 
ivorld  demand  this  of  England.     It  peculiarly  behoves  the 
American  merchants  to  convince  themselves  of  the  necessity 
of  standing  on  this  impjegnable  ground.    From  it  alone 
can  vital  and  permanent  safety  to  their  interesting  pursuits 
be  derived.     If  our  government  must  yield  any  part  of  the 
law  of  nations,  we  can  have  no  security  for  the  remainder. 
Commerce  must  become  precarious,  and  domestic  con, 
sumption  in  the  form  of  home  manufactures  must  empliAr 
our  people  and  our  funds;  for  our  commerce  will  perish 
with  the  subversion  of  the  only  rule  for  the  government 
of  the  republic  of  independent  states — the  universal  or  pre- 
•criptive  and  written  law  of  nations.     This  august  code  is 
the  federal  constitution  of  the  civilized  world.     It  may  not 
be  violated  with  impunity  by  any  power.  Its  violation  may 
not  be  ?'Mowed  by  any  power,  without  baseness  and  ruin. 
But  let  us  return  to  our  historical  review — It  has  been 
maintained  in  these  papers,  that  it  was  erroneous  and  unjust 
to  ascribe  to  France,  the  origination  of  the  neutral  sufRr- 
in^ — a  matter  of  great  importance  with  respect  to  the 
claims  of  retaliation  set  up  by  England.     An  entire  view 
of  that  division  of  the  subject  was  given  in  onr  first  num- 
bers,  commencing  in  1792,  and  bringing  the  enquiry  down 
to  the  date  of  the  British  orders  of  the  8th  of  June,  1793. 

A  distinguished  act,  continuing  and  extending  those  vio- 
lations,  took  place  secretly  in  the  British  privy  council  on 
the  6th  of  November,  1793.*    It  went  the  length  of  au- 

*  COPY) 

George  R.  Additional  instructions— 6th  November, 
1793,  to  all  ships  of  war  and  privateers,  &c. 

"  That  they  shall  stop  and  detain  all  ships  laden  with 
goods,  the  produce  of  any  colony  belonging  to  France,  or 
carrying  provisions  or  odier  supplies  for  tiie  use  of  such 
colonies,  and  shall  bring  the  same,  with  their  cargoes,  to 
legal  adjudication  in  our  courts  of  admiralty. 

"  By  his  majesty's  command, 
(Signed)  «<  HENRY  DUNDAS," 


i 


I 


h 


■  I 


(     28     ) 

thorising  the  seizure  of  all  American  and  other  neutral  ves. 
scls,  and  even  of  the  allies  of  England,  having  on  board  the 
produce  of  the  French  colonics,  or  provisions,  dry  goods, 
and  other  supplies  for  the  use  of  any  French  colony.     1  he 
French  dominions  in  the  East  Indies,  and  the  West  Indies 
were  equally  and  fully  included.    Thus  the  whole  French 
empire,  which  chequered  the  terraqueous  globe,  was  pre- 
postcrously  treated  like  a  little  blockaded  port---for  their 
European  dominions  remained  under  the  operation  of  the 
unresSnded  order  of  the  8th  June.     The  Americans  and 
other  neutrals  were  subjected  to  incalcuable  injuries  anu 
innumerable  violations.    This,  too,  contrary  to  all  decency 
and  precedent,  was  done  in  a  secret, manner  i  for  mlorma- 
tion  of  its  existence  was  suiipressed,  even  at  the  ii"tisn 
.idmiralty,    till  late  in  December:  and  it  was  not  till  the 
25th  of  December  following  its  date  that  our  minister  at 
Loudon  (Mr.  Thomas  Pinckncy)  obtained  a  copy  ot  it, 
as  will  be  sei  n  by  his  official  letter  to  the  secretary  ol  state, 
in  the  president's  message  to  Congress  of  the  4th  ot  April, 
1794      Here  was  a  most  serious  act  of  continuance  ot  the 
violations  of  neutral  rights  in  pursuance  of  the  Russian  con- 
mention,  grounded  upon  a  mere  intention  to  attack,  in  Ue- 
ccmijer,  some  French  colony.— It  was  accompanied  by 
various  circumstances  to  render  it  irregular,  olfensive,  and 
injuious.  It  was  clandestine,  being  kept  from  the  view  of 
all  the  neutral  ministers  in  London,  for  seven  weeks  alter 
its  date,  and  even  reserved  among  the  secret  papers  ol  the 
British  lords  of  the  admiralty.      In  the  mean  time,  pas- 
sages  of   four  and  five  weeks  carried   it  to  the  West- 
Indies:— and  our  unsuspecting  mariners,  our  vessels,  car- 
goes,  and  money,  were  odiously  entrapped  in  the  fatal 
tnare.     Thus  did  they  secure  the  possession  of  our  sailors, 
our  vessels,  and  our  mercantile  capital.       Even  in  the 
case  of  a  blockade,  the  law  of  nations  and  the  treaties  of 
England  with  the  powers  then  owning  the  majority  ot  neu- 
tral  shipping.*  required  a  proclamation,  and  notice  ot  the 
blockade,andaknowledgeofitbytheneutrals,toju8tifythe 

seizure.     Reason  and  onscience  require  the  same,     mt 
Great  Britain,  treading  under  foot  those  obligations  of  the 
laws  of  nations  and  of  h  r  own  treaties  and  aU  decency  and 
•  The  Danes  and  Swedes. 


ithcr  neutral  vcs- 
ing  on  board  the 
ions,  dry  goods, 
:h  colony.  The 
the  West  Indies 
he  whole  French 
,  globe,  was  pre- 
d  port — for  their 

operation  of  the 
e  Americans  and 
lable  injuries  and 
ary  to  all  decency 
nerj  for  informa- 
cn  at  the  British 
it  was  not  till  the 
at  our  minister  at 
led  a  copy  of  it, 

secretary  of  state, 
f  the  4th  of  April, 
continuance  of  the 
if  the  Russian  con- 
I  to  attack,  in  De- 
i  accompanied  by 
liar,  offensive,  and 
t  fiom  the  view  of 
seven  weeks  after 
iccret  papers  of  the 
I  mean  time,  pas- 
1   it  to  the  West- 
3,  our  vessels,  car- 
apped  in  the  fatal 
ision  of  our  sailors, 
al.       Even  in  the 

and  the  treaties  of 
he  majority  ofneu- 
n,  and  notice  of  the 
;utrals,  to  justify  the 
ire  the  same.  But 
le  obligations  of  the 
and  all  decency  and 


(    29    ) 

justice  to  us,  clandestinely  made  and  transmitted  to  her 
naval  commanders  the  orders  of  the  6th  of  November,  when 
no  blockade  existed.  By  those  orders,  a  neutral  American 
or  Dane,  bound  with  French  sugar,  coffee,  &,c.  from  the 
U.  S.  a  neutral  country,  to  Denmark  a  neutral  country, 
nay  even  to  Spain  or  the  Austrian  Netherlands,  then 
countries  of  the  powers  combined  with  England  in  the 
war  against  France,  were  rendered  seizable,  though  the 
cargo  w  as  neutral  property  also,  but  grew  in  a  French 
colony!  By  the  same  order  a  cargo  of  American  pro- 
duce  and  other  goods,  which  could  by  the  arrcte  of  August, 
1784,  be  carried  to  the  French  colonies  in  peace,  was  to 
be  treated  in  like  manner !  Is  it  possible,  that  any  secret 
order  can  be  more  extravagantly,  more  irregularly  injuri- 
ous to  an  enemy,  and  more  violative  of  neutral  rights,  than 
the  British  system  of  orders  of  June  the  8th,  and  Novem- 
ber fith,  1793,  as  they  stood  in  force,  through  the  months 
of  November  and  December?  It  was  April,  1794,  before 
we  knew,  that  the  November  order  either  existed  or  was 
countermanded.  When  we  did  obtain  the  knowledge  oi 
its  being  countermanded,  the  mischief  was  all  done. — It 
was  accompanied  too  with  the  very  unsatisfactory  and 
offensive  information  that  it  was  not  rescinded  from  any 
conviction  in  or  admission  by  England,  that  it  was 
wrong  ;  nor  did  they  profess  that  they  would  not  repeat  it. 
On  the  contrary,  they  explicitly  avowed  that  it  was  coun- 
termanded, because  it  had  served  the  occasional  end  for 
which  it  was  issued.  They  added  too  a  reason  contrary 
to  the  just  rights  and  dignity  of  our  government  and  na- 
tion. They  said,  that  it  was  intended  to  produce  an  effect 
upon  the  interior  circumstances  and  affairs  of  our  country 
and  government!  Professing  to  consider  it  censurable  to 
interfere  with  the  interior  concerns  of  a  foreign  countr}-, 
the  British  secretary  of  state  did  so  interfere  in  the  same 
breath.  He  committed  a  dangerous  derogation  from  our 
right  of  interior  government,  and  gave  to  our  ministec 
Mr.  Pinkney  ^as  an  apology!)  the  assurance,  that  he  had 
no  right  to  do  it.  He  affected  to  treat  the  complainers  in 
America  opaitist  their  orders  of  council^  as  the  enemies 
of  Great  Britain  and  of  our  own  government!  Mr. 
Genet   having   been  caused  by  the  French  to  expiate 


i^m 


i! 


•  1 


!' 


\i 


• 


(     SO     ) 

his  offence  by  the  loss  of  all  his  honors  and  emoluments, 
France  stood  on  clear  ground.  Lord  Grcnville  must  be 
uonsidered,  therefore  as  the  predecessor,  in  1793,  of  all 
the  unrepaired  irreguhirities  of  foreign  diplomatic  charac- 
ters,  in  their  transactions  with  our  government.  His  con- 
duct has  never  received  any  censure,  or  notice,  so  far  as 
wc  are  informed,  except  those  m  .nifestations  of  it,  given 
in  Mr.  Pinckney's  letter  of  the  9th  of  January,  1794, 
wherein  he  states,  tliat  ♦«  of  course  he  said  nothing,  (in 
reply  to  Lord  Grcnville)  of  our  internal  affiiirs,  nor,  of 
those  of  France,"  they  being  our  foreign  allies. 

The  next  British  orders  of  the  8th  of  January,   1794, 
authorised  the  seizure  of  all  neutral  vessels,  bound  from  the 
French  West  India  colonies  to  Europe;  also  of  all  French 
West   India  produce  from  those  islands   bound  to  the 
ports  of  neutrals,  or  even  to  those  of  the  allies  of  England. 
Yet  the  British  afterwards  led  us  into  a  treaty  for  carrying 
not  only  their  West  India  but  their  East  India  protluce  to 
our  ports  during  the  war — Thus  the  verj'  means  used  to 
aid  all  \.heir  own  colonies,  have  been  made  the  cause  of  sei. 
zure  against  all  the  neutrals,  \^  hen  serving  a  part  of  the  co- 
lonies  of  France.    Neutrals  too,  who  had  secured  by  treaty 
the  right  to  protect  the  goods  of  an  enemy  in  their  neutral 
ehips  were  deprived  of  this  stipulated  right,  in  order  to 
injure  France.  But  the  section  of  the  law  of  1793  concern- 
ing orders  of  council  protected  the  ministers.    These  were 
new  repetitions  of  violations  of  neutral  commerce,  which 
manifested  to  France  the  British  determination  to  continue, 
upon  every  call  of  interest  or  instigaion  of  hostility,  ingeni- 
ously  and  without  precedent  hardily  to  apply  the  system  and 
principle,  they  had  commenced  and  reiterated  in  1792, 
&  1793.  They  never  permitted  the  irritability  of  the  French 
to  be  abated,  nor  the  wounds  of  neutral  rights  to  be  cured. 
If  the  French  became  inflamed  at  the  sight  of  their  own 
wrongs,  and  at  the  vast  expences,  injuries,  and  dangers, 
which  they  produced,  Britain  surely  was  the  cause. 


I 


No.  VII. 

It  has  been  unfortunate  for  neutral  commerce,  that  the 
ma-chants  could  not  know,  in  time  to  avoid  confiscations, 


nd  emoluments, 
envillc  must  be 

in  1793,  of  all 
)lomatic  churac- 
ncnt.  His  con- 
notice,  so  far  as 
ons  of  it,  given 
January,  1794, 
Jill  nothing,  (in 

afFairs,  nor,  of 
allies. 
January,   1794, 

bound  from  the 
so  of  all  French 
1  bound  to  the 
lies  of  England. 
?aty  for  carrying 
India  protluce  to 
'{  means  used  to 
the  cause  of  sci. 
a  part  of  the  co- 
secured  by  treaty 
r  in  their  neutral 
jht,  in  order  to 
af  1793  concern- 
Ts.    These  were 
ommerce,  which 
ition  to  continue, 
hostility,  ingeni- 
ly  the  system  and 
terated  in  1792, 
lity  of  the  French 
;hts  to  be  cured, 
ight  of  their  own 
ies,  and  dangers, 
:he  cause. 


nmerce,  that  the 
aid  confiscations, 


(    31     ) 


r 

I         ^c  detached  sections  of  foreign  lawa,  executive  orders^ 
I  &c.  &c.  by  which  their  property  was  unwarrantably  con. 

I  dcmacd.     It  is  of  consequence,  that  ihcy  should  now  sco 

I  and  understand  these  great  sources  of  danger.     Nothing 

can  protect  our  merclianis,  but  our  maintaining  inviolate 
the  law  of  nations.  We  have  contended,  that  our  pro- 
perty was  often  captured  and  condemned  without  any  real 
and  sound  lawful  authority,  and,  of  course,  against  exist- 
ing  law.  It  is  proposed  now  to  olfcr  to  the  American 
merchants  a  decided  opinion  on  this  subject,  which  a  very 
great  majority  of  them  will  receive  as  the  most  respectable 
and  indisputable.  It  comes  from  Mr.  King,  who  as  a  man 
of  natural  abilities,  as  a  lawyer,  an  experienced  diplomatist, 
and  perfectly  informed  by  the  Knglish  ministers  themselves, 
in  recent  negociatio^s,  of  all  their  pretensions,  writes  thus 
in  the  40th  page  .-.'  his  pamphlet  in  "  Reply  to  war  in 
Disguise,"  published  by  Riley  &  co.  of  New- York,  and 
S.  F .  Bradford,  of  Philadelphia,  in  February,  1806.  He 
expressly  states  as  follows,  in  regard  to  British  captures. 

*'  The  prize  courts  therefore  spoke  to  neutrals  (by  their 
decrees)  this  clear  and  distinct  language.  We  acknow- 
ledge, that  by  the  law  of  nations  you  are  entitled  to  the 
prohibited  commerce,  and  should  not  hesitate  to  restore 
your  captured  properly,  but  we  are  bound  by  the  text  of 
the  king's  instructions.  VVlv.re  they  do  not  apjily  we 
shall  restore,  as  we  did  during  the  American  war ;  and  as 
soon  and  as  far  as  the  instructions  may  be  withdrawn,  so 
soon  and  so  far,  we  will  conform  our  decrees  to  the  law  of 
nations.*' 

Again  in  page  41,  Mr.  King  writes  more  concisely, 
though  indeed  not  more  explicitly  thus.  "  It  has  in  the 
strong  and  pointed  terms  of  Sir  VVilliam  Scott,"  (the  pre- 
sent judge  of  the  High  Court  of  Admiralty  of  Great  Bri- 
tain,) "  been  adjudged^  thl^,  die  text  of  the  king's  instruc- 
tions is  the  true  rule  of  a  piize  court." 

The  conduct  of  the  Briti^,h  naval  commanders,  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  order  of  council  of  January,  1791,  and 
ou  the  plea  of  blockading  islands,  was  wry  dreadful  to 
America.  It  is  certain  that  blockading  Vifort^  a  castk,  a 
town,  or  a  port,  is  a  preccdeuted  and  common  measure. 
But  the  blockading  a  lo/.'c/f  groupe  or  chain  of  i.dands,  :it 


I 


1 


C   3a   ) 

one  tinle,  ami  the  blockade  of  an  entire  great  islandy  like 
St.  Domingo,  is  a  new  stretch  of  English  nuvul  retincment. 
The  island  of  St.  Domingo  is  considerably  longer  thun  tlie 
kingtlom  of  England,  and  it  is  therefore  a  preposterous 
affectation  of  blockade^  to  put  all  the  ports  of  it  nniler  an 
inhibitory  proclamation,  because  one  port  or  two  arc  pro- 
perly and  really  blockaded.  A  ruinous  list  of  captures, 
however,  took  place  under  these  orders  and  proclamations 
of  blockade,  by  the  English,  during  the  year  1794,  and 
examples  as  wild,  as  loose,  and  as  injurious,  as  poM.siblc 
to  the  French,  and  to  the  neutrals,  were  set  by  the  Bcr- 
nuidians,  Halifaxmen,  Providencemen,  and  British  frigates 
to  the  French  cruisers. 

In  the  close  of  that  year,  the  treaty  was  hesitatingly  made 
by  Mr.  Jay,  and  Lord  Grenvillc,  between  the  U.  States 
aiul  (jKat  Britain.  It  was  thought  only  better  th.m  nar 
by  persons  of  both  parties.  By  this  treaty  the  British,  by 
mutual  contract t  gave  to  the  Americans,  and  we  accepted 
several  nevi  rights,  to  trade  in  the  war,  with  the  En^lish 
colonies  in  the  East  and  West  Indies;  which  rights  were 
of  the  same  nature,  as  certain  other  rights  to  trade,  in  the 
war,  which  the  French  had  allowed  by  their  own  separate 
acts  to  the  Americans.  Those  rights  to  trade,  granted  by 
the  French,  were  constantly  made  tbe  avowed  ground  to 
confiscate  neutral  American  ships  and  cargoes  by  the  Bri- 
tish orders  of  council  and  courts  of  admiralty,  because  the 
neutral  Americans,  as  it  was  (dleged,  thereby  undertook  to 
aid  the  French  colonial  agriculture.  Yet  great  complaints 
have  been  made,  that  the  French  have  condemned  Ameri- 
can vessels  for  giving  the  same  aid  to  islands  taken  from 
themselves  by  the  British,  though  we  had  guaranteed  those 
islands  by  the  treaty  of  1778,  then  in  force.  Here  the 
French  have  acted  much  more  favorably  to  the  neutrals 
than  the  English;  for  their  courts  do  not  hold  the  general 
English  principle,  viz.  to  condemn  vessels  from  the  East 
and  West  India  British  colonies,  because  the  privilege  of 
trading  with  those  colonies  was  given  to  us  in  the  war,  and 
was  not  previously  allowed  by  law,  in  peace.  Thus  the 
English  afford  an  example  extremely  injurious  to  the  neu- 
trals, which  the  French  have  refrained  from  following. 
Tliis  is  an  important  truth. 


«m 


teat  island^  like 

iivul  rt-tiiicnicnt. 

longer  thun  tlie 

a  preposterous 

ut  it  uiHter  un 

or  two  urc  pro< 

ist  of  cuptures, 

d  proclumations 

f'car  1794,  and 

)us,  as  possible 

set  by  the  Bcr- 

I  British  frigutes 

Jsitatir^gly  made 

II  the  U.  States 
better  th.m  nar 

the  British,  by 
m(\  we  accepted 
ith  the  Kn^liiih 
lich  rights  were 

to  tratle,  in  the 
ir  own  separate 
ade,  granted  by 
rwcd  ground  to 
foes  by  the  Bri- 
ulty,  because  the 
eby  undertook  to 
;reat  complaints 
:lemne(i  Ameri- 
mds  taken  from 
uaranteed  those 
rce.     Here  the 

to  the  neutrals 
lold  the  general 
s  from  the  East 
the  privilege  of 

in  the  war,  and 
ace.  Thus  the 
*ious  to  the  neu- 
tVom  following. 


(     33     ) 

It  Is  nn  essential  point  of  dlficrcncc  in  the  condtjct  of 
France  and  Great  Britain,  that  France  has  hitherto  ad* 
mitted  the  doctrine,  th:it  her  citizens  may  change  dieir 
allegiance  and  become  American  sailors,  merchants,  and 
shi|)-hoIders.  The  opposite  doctrine  is  held  by  I'.nghind 
— and  many  a  fine  ship  has  Ix'en  tntlangeicd  or  expensivt  ly 
deUiined  by  the  impressment  of  native  F  glishnicn,  nuir. 
ried  in  America,  and  become,  legally,  citizens  of  the  U. 
States.  Numerous  captures  have  taken  place  l>ecausi  the 
cargoes  were  the  property  if  Fnglishmen  thus  bee  omo 
Americans,  who  had  bought  gomls  in  places  belonging  to 
the  enemies  of  Fngland.  The  Fnglish  courts  doi\y  the 
American  citizenship,  of  such  former  Fnglish  subjects,  and 
condemn  their  property,  iK'cause  they  are  |x.rson'i  claimed 
as  British  subjects,  and  have  done  business  in  countries 
belonging  to  their  enemies.  To  a  countrj  like  ours,  inces- 
santly receiving  foreign  merchants  and  capital,  this  is  an 
immense  disadvantage,  arising  from  the  conduct  of  Fng- 
land alone,  and  not  followed  b}  France. 

Fngland  may  fairly  be  considered  as  having  forced 
America  into  an  entirely  new  act,  for  a  neutral  power,  in 
making  the  provision  article  of  Mr.  Jay's  treaty;  an  article 
cx[)ensive,  dangerous,  and  even  capable  of  being  rendered 
fatal  to  France,  It  may  be  justly  asserted  that  this  provi- 
sion article  is  without  precedent  in  the  annals  of  the  civi- 
lized world.  No  neutral  nation  ever  before  made  such  a 
contract  with  a  i>ovver  at  war.  It  is  said  to  be  advantageous 
to  us,  and  to  France,  and  yet  Fngland  adopted  the  measure 
of  her  own  accord,  before  the  treaty,  and  insisted  upon  it 
in  making  the  treaty !  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  Fngland 
did  consider  the  provision  article,  as,  on  the  whole,  very 
injurious  to  France  and  very  advantageous  to  herself. 

When  the  treaty  was  signed  in  London,  on  the  19th  of 
November,  1794,  the  orders  of  the  British  council,  which 
had  injured  and  disgraced  the  neutrals,  and  brought  on 
avowed  defensive  retaliations  from  France,  were  either 
revoked  or  considered  as  superceded.  In  this  state  of 
things,  the  treaty  and  Mr.  Jay  arrived  in  America.  The 
President  received  the  treaty  early  in  March,  179 1.  No 
objection  to  it  being  promulgated,  and  the  senate  b.ing 
called  to  receive  it  ibr  ratification,  there  was  every  reason 


(     3i     ) 

l^ncrnlly  to  piTHume,  that  it  was  so  Far  apfrtwhie  to  the 
rrt'sidciit,  that  he  wouUl  oficr  it  without  objct  lion  to  that 
Ixxly,  i\»  iiulcfd  he  uftcrwurds  <Hd.  Such  I  cing  the  appear- 
nncc  of  thinus  in  the  Ix-ninning  of  March,  it  may  be  fairly 
nre>*umcd,  that  the  British  government  relied  in  May  (two 
months  after  the  call  of  the  senate)  with  firm  co.  fidtncc, 
that  the  treaty  would  Ik  ra  ified  l)cforc  any  thing,  England 
might  then  do,  could  be  known  in  America. 

Ill  thin  state  of  things  the  new  orders  of  the  British 
King  in  council  of  May,  1795,  for  carrying  incur  provi- 
sion  vessels,  Were  issued.     To  judge  of  the  shock  to 
Franc: ,  let  us  rcmemlier  how  the  bare  rumour  paralized 
the  late  President  Washuigton.     He  madr  an  immediate 
and  solemn  stantl,  and  caused  it  to  be  made  known  to  the 
British  minister,  that  be  ivoiiid  not  return  t/.e  treaty  vibtle 
those  orders  ivere  continued  in  force.   The  Biitish  minister 
here,  suggested  the  advice  of  revoking  them  for  a  time, 
to  give  u  factitious  moment  of  their  non-existence,  lor  the 
ratification  of  the  treaty!  He  explicitly  proposed,  however, 
that  they  should  then  be  renewed!  How  dangerous  to  the 
neutrals  were  the  examples  of  British  conduct,  set  before 
the  government  of  FraiKc.     The  English  minister  actmg 
thus,  is  publicly  known  to  have  solicited  the  executive  of 
this  country,  for  the  favour  of  being  made  tl^  bearer  of  the 
trcatv  to  England.    Instead  of  continuing  to  l)c  i.iformcd, 
that  the  provision  orders  must  be  revoked  before  the  treaty 
would  be  signed;  the  President's  signature  was  subscribed 
to  the  instrument,  and  the  beneft  and  Ijonor  of  carrying  tt 
to  England  conferred  upon  the  British  mtnister,  agreeably 
to  bis  request.     It  is  with  infinite  pain,  that  such  facts  are 
noticed.     But  they  are  necessary  to  show  the  deportment 
of  England,  and  her  tide  to  injure  us  now  by  rej^aUng 
original  aggressions  under  the  name  of  Retaliations. 

The  British  orders  of  May,  1795,  may  be  deemed  faith- 
less to  us,  and  peculiarly  offensive  and  injurious  to  France, 
who  would  as  naturally  consider  them  as  explanatory  o4 
the  British  sense  of  the  treaty,  as  our  own  President  is 
known  to  have  done.  It  is  years  since  the  publication  oj 
that  fact  was  made  in  America;  with  what  degree  of  good 
intention  or  prudence  will  not  be  discussed.  The  cap;ures 
under  these  orders  were  so  many,  that  at  the  end  of  twenty 


■•MM- 


ilTfrnlite  to  ihe 
)jtH  lion  H)  that 
in^  ihe  apncnr. 
it  may  be  fairly 
ctl  in  May  (two 
rm  cot  fidtncc, 
thing,  England 
a. 

of  the  British 
»g  in  our  provi- 
r  the  shock  to 
imour  poratized 
f  an  immediate 
e  known  to  the 
tU  treaty  vibi/e 
Biitish  minister 
iicm  for  a  time, 
Kistcncc,  lor  the 
posed,  however, 
langerous  to  the 
iduct,  set  before 
I  minister  acting 
the  executive  of 
t\\e  bearer  of  the 

to  l)c  informed, 
before  the  treaty 
r  was  subscribed 
or  of  carrying  it 
ftister,  agreeably 
at  such  lacts  are 
'  the  deportment 
ow  by  repeating 
!:taliations. 
be  deemed  faiih- 
irious  to  France, 
IS  explanatory  oi' 
)wn  President  is 
he  publication  of 
U  degree  of  good 
:d.  The  captures 
the  end  of  twenty 


1 


(     35     ) 

l\vo  months,  aljout  one  hundred  und  t«  etUy  cases  were  car- 
ried  imo  the  Uritihh  liigh  court  of  admiialty  appeals.  'rhc<ic 
were  chiefly  our  Kuro|)can  adventures,  wherein  the  cargoes 
and  ves-icls  are  large  and  valuable.  Not  a  dollar  of  these 
is  saved  by  Mr.  JayS  treaty  which  does  not  aftect  them. 
It  only  retiospccted,  and  left  Engbiul  to  spoliali:  ut  will  iu 
all  future  times. 


No.s. 

Great  Britain  was  not  contented  to  make  and  execute 
her  own  anti-neutral  orders  of  council  and  to  give  open  in. 
demnity  for  those  breaches  of /)wMV  law,  in  the  manner  wc 
have  seen,  but  she  used  her  utmost  endeavors  in  the  year 
179J,  to  lead  other  powers  into  i\\v.  adoption  «»r  ih'tst'uii. 
piecedentcd  and  illegitimate  provisions  in  her  conveniiou 
with  Huisia,  which  we   have  already  noticed.      Prunsia, 
Austria,  and  Spain  were  drawn  by  England  intosimilar 
engagements,  and  America,  Genoa,  and  Tuseain  inime- 
tliatcly  witnessed  the  separate  or  joint  cffortsi  of  Ciicat  Bri . 
tain  and  her  lawless  associates  to  C(X.'rcc  them  into  an  injuri- 
oils  and  degrading  submission  to  this  new  English  project 
of  depriving   the  opposite  belligerent  of  all  the  benefits  of 
neutral  commerce.      Let  it  be  well  remembered,  that  this 
act  was  commenced,   matureil  and  pnlilishal  in   J.mulon, 
under  the  official  signatures  of  die  British  and  Russian 
ministers  on  the  2Sth  of  March  1793.     There,   then  and 
thus  was  the  unlawful  foundation  laid  for  all  the  subsequent 
violations  of  neutral  rights,  by  this  great  anti-neutral  com- 
binadon. 

Let  us  suppose  for  a  moment,  that,  upon  the  receipt  of 
that  Anglo- Russian  treaty  at  Paris  in  the  close  of  March, 
1793,  whtTcby  the  French  were  attempted  to  be  deprived, 
by  dint  of  naval  power,  of  all  rightful  and  legitimate  in, 
teixjourse  with  neutrals,  the  government  of  France  had  in- 
stantly  avow  ed  the  right,  the  duty  and  the  necessity  of  re- 
taliating the  measure,  in  form  and  substanei-,  and  had 
immediately  passed  legislative  and  executive  acts,  direc, 
tin«f  the  total  prcvcntinn of  ticutr.d  intcrcourne  with  Eng, 


(     30     ) 

land  and  her  domlnionii,     No  nolxr  and  hoiWit  Amertcati 
Hill  i«'mI>i,  (imMion,  or  deny,  that  such  t  law  ami  tkcrtc 
ol  I'latici  ill  l.yj,  would  have  l)ccn  justly  churKcabIc  to 
Great  IJriittin,  and  that  it  would  havf  Ircii  a  cleur,  aimple, 
and  mcie  retaliaticju  on  the  part  ol  the  Frtm  h.   It  rrquuoi 
bill  link-  effort  ol  a  nouud  mind  ami  an  honest  heart  then 
to  plait-  to  the  ai count  of  the  govemnicnt  of  Great  Bri- 
tain, t\w  varioun  inlraclions  of  our  neutral  rights  by  the 
goveinmt  nil  of  France  and  her  allies,  which  havecKCured 
nini  e  the  <latei  <<f  lho^.e  numerous  and  stupendouji  vi«»la- 
tionh  i»f  those  rights  in  the  years  l7Ui,  ami  I7W,  which 
hvc  bt-'U  faiihlully  rtpreM:nted  in  the  former  numl)era  of 
thchC  pa|)ers. 

♦•  Tbc  tav)  of  mitiotis,**  till  Enghmd  thun  began,  waa 
the  grtai  charter  oi  American  |)eace*— that  peace  tlie 
God  of  nature  gave,  and  we  estimate,  as  a  most  blessed 
fruit  of  his  divine  will.  We  had  but  to  Ix-  just,  an<l  pub- 
lie  hap|)i<tcss  was  ours! — but  alas,  the  scene  is  changed. 
The  foundatioua  of  the  law  of  nations  have  sustained  from 
the  hands  ol  Kngland,  in  her  early  treaties  with  Russia, 
Prussia,  Austria,  and  Spain,  a  rude  and  deliberate  stroke, 
intcntled  to  destroy  it— and  with  that  law,  to  destroy  our 
peace.  If  we  trace  the  conduct  of  Great  Britain,  furUicr, 
similar  evidences  but  thicken  around  us. 

Let  us  i)roccetl  in  the  painful,  but  necessary  duty.— 
In  the  progress  of  the  war  of  1793,  Spain  and  all  her  allies, 
incluiling  Kngland,  were  unable  to  protect  her  from  ihc 
vigorous  attacks,  which  this  unprecedented  engagement 
with  1  .ngland  in  that  year  brought  upon  her.     She  was 
forced  to  abandon  her  Knglish  connection  and  to  save  her- 
self  Irom  ruin  by  engaging  on  the  side  of  France.    No 
sooner  had  this  new  war  of  palpable  Spanish  necessity 
taken  place,  than  the  Knglish  admiral.  Nelson,  published 
a  proclamation,  dated  off  Cadi?.,  declaring  to  the  neutrals , 
that  on  that  account,  "  it  m  as  found  right  that  Spain  should 
no  longer  have  any  trade!!"  The  history  of  the  civilized 
world  never  before  recorded  an  instance  of  a  mere  block, 
ading  admiral  at  a  port,  attempting  to  proclaim  to  all  na- 
tions  that  a  whole  kingtiom  was  no  longer  to  have  any  trade, 
to  the  total  consequent  and  illegitimate  destruction  of  ncu- 
trdl  rights.    Will  any  man  wonder,  tliat  powerful  bclhge. 


MM  American 
aw  and  ilrcrec 

charge  able  to 
I  cU'cr,  timnle, 
ih.  It  rrqulK't 
icst  heart  then 
of  Great  Brl- 

rightik  by  the 
h  have fxcurcd 
itKiulouH  viola- 
I  17tf3,  which 
K-r  numhcra  of 

US  began,  wai 
hut  |K-acc  the 
a  moht  blessed 
'  just,  aivl  pub- 
lic IH  chungcii. 
Husluincd  frnm 
•s  with  Russia, 
.•liberate  !>trokc, 
to  destroy  our 
Britain,  further, 

ccssary  duty.— 
iml  all  her  allies, 
ct  her  from  the 
ted  engagement 

her.  She  was 
and  to  save  her- 
of  France.  No 
vanish  neccsbity 
.Ison,  published 
;  to  the  neutrals, 
hat  Spain  should 

of  the  civilized 
»f  a  mere  block. 
x:luim  to  all  na- 
0  have  any  trade, 
struction  of  ncu- 
powcrful  bclligC' 


(    '17    ) 

rfnt  mftt^archaahmjU!,  in  rttaliat'on,  d?  half  what  a  sccon* 
Umtv  Kitgii»h  admiral  has  thus  done  muo.)  ycara  l)cfurc. 

This  strange  and  extravagant  act  of  admiral  Nelson's  Is 
a  part  of  that  monstroiDi  and  crude  mann  of  British  violations 
ol  neutral  rightM,  ivhich  are  to  Ik-  found  in  the  or«lrr»  of 
their  king  in  cotmcil,  in  dte  prm'him.itiom  of  their  generals 
anti  admirah,  and  even  in  the  acts  of  (Kirliamcnt,  under 
the  two  heads  of 

Blockades  and  regulations  <([  neutrtl  trade. 

These  acts  of  the  British  government  are,  in  a  great  many 
very  im|>ortant  instances,  and  for  nuich  the  greater  part,  en- 
tirely unsupiiorted  by  law  or  reason,  in  direct  violation  of 
the  law  of  nations  and  indisputably  injurious  to  n.  utral 
rights.  As  they  apply  to  one  important  subject,  they  arc 
most  accurately,  faithfully  and  ably  charai  tcrized  in  the  fol- 
lowing concise  summary  of  the  Knglish  conduct,  in  the 
pamphlet  (of  18061,  written  by  Mr.  Madison:  a  work  which 
every  neutral  »M!  j  tini'i  a'>d  merchant,  and  evrry  honest 
bellig«'rent,  shoni  Icardully  read  and  iv ell  consider. 

'*  The  ^iysteni  of  Oreat  Brit;iin,  (bay*  this  inval'iablc 
*'  pamphlet)  may  therefore  now  Ix'  considered,  as  unnoun- 
"  cedto  all  the  world,  without  disguise,  and  by  the  most 
"  solemn  acts  of  her  government.  Her  navy  having  des* 
♦•  troyed  the  trade  of  her  enemies,  as  well  Ixtwten  the 
••  mother  country  and  their  colonics,  a»  bctwau  the 
"  former  and  neutral  countries,  ai\  I  her  conrts,  by 
**  putting  an  end  to  rc-cxport.itions  from  neutral  toun- 
"  tries,  rtnlucing  the  importation  into  these  to  the  niurc 
**  amount  of  their  own  consumption,  the  inimenvc  surplus 
"  of  productions  accumulating  in  fhr  American  posses- 
'•  sions  of  her  enemies  can  find  no  outlet,  but  throuf^h  the 
'*  free  porta"  (of  the  British  West  Indies),  "  provitled  for 
**  it,  nor  any  other  market  than  the  British  market,  and 
•*  those  to  which  she  finds  it  her  interest  to  distribuU:  it: 
"  with  a  view  to  which  she  not  only  allows  her  enemies  to 
*'  trade  with  her  possessions,  bvit  allows  her  subjects  to 
•*  trade  with  her  enemies.  And  thus,  in  defiance  as  well 
*•  of  her  treason  laws,  and  of  her  laws  of  tiade,  as  of  the 
"  rights  of  neutrality,  under  the  ljr.uof  ruii'ions,  wctfiiui 


\ 


^^ 


(     38     ) 

V  her,  in  the  just  and  emphatic  language  of  the  President, 
"  taking  to  herself,  by  aa  inconsistency,  at  which  reason 
"revolts,  a  commerce  with  her  own  enemy,  which  she 
"  denies  to  a  neutral,  on  the  ground  of  its  aiding  an  enemy 
*'  in  the  war." 

Could  it  liave  been  credited  of  Great  Britain  or  of  any 
other  respectable  government,  that  they  would  have  passed 
laws  to  promote  and  facilitate  trade  between  the  British 
dominions,  (and  by  British  subjects)  with  the  dominions 
and  ports  of  France,  after  entering  into  four  solemn  treaties 
with  the  great  European  states  to  prevent  the  neutrals  from 
trading  with  those  very  French  ports  and  dominions,  un- 
der the  penalty  of  a  degrading  and  fatal  confiscation?  Can 
it  be  expected  by  Great  Britain,  that  the  neutral  world 
will  ever  submit  to  the  substitution  of  so  monstrous  a  sys- 
tem of  monopolising  inconsistency  and  oppression  for  the 
eternal  justice  of  the  laws  of  nations. 

The  hostile  influence  of  the  government  of  Great  Bri. 
tain  upon  neutral  trade,  has  been  manifested  in  another 
form,  particularly  unjust,  injurious  and  offensive.  From 
the  earliest  time  the  British  courts  of  admiralty  have  bur- 
dened both  acquitted  and  condemned  vessels  and  cargoes 
with  costs  and  charges,  fatal  to  ordinaiy  adventures;  and 
every  shade  of  inconsistent  opinion,  from  acquittal  to  con- 
demnation in  cases  turning  on  the  same  principle,  has 
marked  the  decrees  of  the  judges  themselves.  The  mpre 
high  and  proud  are  the  claims  of  the  British  judipiaiy  de- 
jwrtment  to  honour  and  confidence,  in  its  dispensations  of 
justice  at  home,  the  deeper  is  the  stain  of  such  facts,  in 
their  administration  of  law  to  neutral  suitors. 

Such  as  we  have  stated  in  these  papers  was  the  conduct 
of  the  British  government  towards  her  belligerent  adver- 
sary and  the  neutial  states  in  the  first  months  of  the  war  of 
*93.  So  did  she  teach  that  adversary,  by  her  own  illegi- 
timate  example,  to  impede,  to  harrass,  to  despoil,  to  mulct, 
to  diminish,  and  to  dc^stroy  the  commerce  of  neutrals — 
so  did  she  induce  and  teach  Spain,  Russia,  Prussia  and 
Austria.  So  did  she  coerce  the  U.  States,  Genoa  and 
Tuscany:  and  so  did  she  attempt  Denmark  and  Sweden. 
So  did  she  still  continue  to  act  towiu-ds  us  in  the  month  of 
Nowjmber,  1806,  when  the  government  of  France  adopted 


■  the  President, 
it  which  reason 
Tiy,  which  she 
liding  an  enemy 

ritain  or  of  any 
uld  have  passed 
een  the  British 
the  dominions 
solemn  treaties 
tie  neutrals  from 
dominions,  un> 
infiscation?  Can 
:  neutral  world 
monstrous  a  sys- 
pression  for  the 

»t  of  Great  Bri. 
jsted  in  another 
"ensive.  From 
iralty  have  bur- 
cls  and  cargoes 
idventures;  and 
icquittal  to  con- 
principle,  has 
es.  T|ie  more 
sh  judiqiaiy  de- 
dispensations  of 

■  such  facts,  in 
)rs. 

vas  the  conduct 
:lligerent  adver- 
bs  of  the  war  of 
her  own  illegi- 
(.■spoil,  to  mu'ct, 
:c  of  ncuirals — 
ia,  Prussia  and 
tes,  Genoa  and 
Ic  and  Sweden, 
in  the  month  of 
France  adopted 


( 


59 


} 


Its  acts  of  avowed  and  actual  retaliation.  For  this  act  of 
France,  tironeously  supposed  at  tlic  first  to  be  a  total  pro- 
hibition of  neutral  trade  w  ith  the  British  kingdoms,  hng- 
land  sets  up,  against  the  universal  law  of  nations,  and  a 
new  formed  treaty  with  the  U.  States  a  pretension  to  st 
right  to  retaliate;  profiting  of  her  own  'Mrong,  against  the 
maxims  ol'  our  common  law,  and  the  absolute  rules  of 
reason  and  justice. — The  great  original  parent-ag^rcssor 
and  seducer  of  Europe,  in  the  moment  of  a  retaliation 
inlerior  liir  to  her  acts  of  provocation,  and  drawn  by  years 
of  malconduct  on  herself,  preposterously  claims  from  that 
retaliation  a  right  to  repeat  her  innumerable  malefactions 
against  the  most  useful  and  necessiiry  of  her  neutral  friends! 
The  law  of  nations  she  had  long  and  often  torn,  in  public, 
to  miserable  tatters,  and  our  new  treaty  was  not  to  bind 
her,  because  she  had  taught  France  her  own  new  system  of 
iommercial  blockade.      On  us,   the  written  letter  of  the 


treaty  articles  and  the  old  fashioned  rules  of  the  law  of 
nations  were  to  continue  absolutely  obligatory,  'i'he  treaty 
with  England,  though  suspended  or  annihilated  there.by 
a  convenient  rider  of  her  dictation,  was  to  be  and  continue 
*\  the  supreme  taw  of  the  land''  in  the  U  States.  Thus 
did  England  prove,  that  she  had  repeated  her  injuries  till 
our  apparent  insensibility  caused  her  to  believe  we  hadwo 
feeling;  and  that  she  had  deceived  us  by  the  color  of  law 
in  her  council  orders  and  of  regularity  in  her  pretended 
blockades,  till  we  fad  no  sense.  The  hopes  of  the  two  coun. 
tries  arc  brought  now  into  a  narrow  ground,  capable  of 
feii-  and  thorough  explanation.  We  are  two  nations. 
Both  independent. — The  universal  prescriptive  law  of  na- 
tions must  govern  both,  as  to  men  and  things.  No  dis- 
wensation  can  be  claimed  by  either  party,  as  of  right. 
We  can  yield  no  solid  provision  of  the  law  of  nations,  with 
safety  or  innocence.  The  times  require  of  us  .nn  cnlight- 
fcned,  a  sincere,  and  an  undannted  neutrality. 


I 
i 


MP 


(    40    ) 


No.  IX. 


It  may  be  well  for  the  United  States  calmly  and  closely 
to  enquire  and  to  consider  what  would  have  been  the  state 
of  things  between  thcni  and  Great  Britain,  if  the  treaty  of 
December  had  been  perfectly  satisfactory  in  all  its  arti- 
cles,  and  if  it  had  l)een  mutually  ratified,  without  the  at. 
tempted  British  rider. 

From  the  state  of  things  in  the  month  of  December 
1806,  immediately  before  its  date,  and  from  the  course  and 
condition  of  things  since  and  at  present,  we  could  not  have 
expected,  that  it  would  have  made  any  difference  in  the  con- 
duct  of  Great  Britain,  beyond  the  strict 'dictates  of  its  com- 
ponent  articles  and  provisions.     In  all  those  important, 
numerous  and  diversified  cases  and  circumstances,  w  hich. 
the  treaty  did  not  contemplate  and  which  no  treaty  can  em- 
brace  or  effectually  provide  for,  in  all  those  cases  resting 
merely  upon  the  universal  law  of  nations,  we  should  remiiin 
subject  tot  he  usual  English  operations,  founded  on  grounds 
like  her  stipulations  of  1 793  with  Russia,  covered  by  her 
act  of  the  17th  June  1793  and  its  continuance  in  1803, 
and  exemplified  in  her  orders  of  council  from  June  1793 
to  January  1807,  with  the  flue  uating  principles  of  her 
admiralty  judges,  and  the  habitual  extortions  of  the  other 
officers  of  those  tribunals.     If  an  effectual  rt  medy  for  the 
incessant  aberrations  of  Britain  fivm  public  law,  could  not 
be  secured,  a  treaty,  which  would  have  left  us  open  to  the 
usual  discretionary  repetitiono!  them,  in  virtue  of  the  des- 
potic pretension  of  the  English  crown,  to  make  rules  for 
the  government  of  their  courts  in  the  condemnation  of  our 
property,  would  have  subjected  us  to  the  most  serious 
evils.     We  should  have  been  bound  even  in  our  own 
courts,  by  the  law  of  nations  and  the  ratified  treaty,  while 
an  order  of  the  King  and  Council  would  direct  British  cap. 
tures  and  ensure  British  condemnations  of  our  ships  and 
cargoes.     The  repetition  of  the  orders  of  June  1793,  at  the 
first  moment  in  1795,  that  it  was  supposed  Mr.  Jay's 
treaty  was  ratified,  and  the  attempt  in  December  last  to 
release  themselves  from  the  obligations  of  the  new  formed 


urn 


Imly  and  closely 
^e  lx:cn  the  state 
,  if  the  treaty  of 
ry  in  all  its  arti- 
without  the  at> 

h  of  December 
n  the  course  and 
e  could  not  have 
rencc  in  the  con» 
:tatesofitsconi- 
hose  important, 
nstances,  ^hich. 
lo  treaty  can  em- 
)se  cases  resting 
ve  should  remain 
nded  on  grounds 
,  covered  by  her 
nuance  in  1803, 
from  June  1793 
)rinciples  of  her 
ions  of  the  other 
il  rtmedy  for  the 
ic  law,  could  not 
ft  us  open  to  the 
i^irtue  of  the  des- 
0  make  rules  for 
[lemnation  of  our 
he  most  serious 
ven  in  our  own 
fied  treaty,  while 
irect  British  cap- 
of  our  ships  and 
June  1T93,  at  the 
iposed  Mr.  Jay's 
December  last  to 
f  the  new  formed 


(    *1    ) 

treaty  in  the  very  act  of  cxchanj^ing  it,  too  plainly  instruct 
us  what  tv/jat  could  and  what  viould  be  done.  Unplcasing 
indeed  is  it  to  believe,  that  the  general  order  of  things  in 
any  foreign  country,  is  such  as  to  forbid  tne  h-  pe....as  to 
bar  the  possibility  of  a  satisfactory  arrangement  with  her. 
Yet  such,  it  is  sincerely  believed  will  be  found  to  be  the 
factitious  atixte  of  things,  which  the  several  administrations 
and  legislatures  of  Great  Britain  have  created  there,  since 
the  year  1791.  This  serious  idea  is  not  suggested  as  an 
attack  upon  her,  but  as  an  important  reflection  upon  those 
historical  truths,  which  have  been  submitted  in  these 
papers. 

What  then  is  to  be  done.  It  is  easier  for  humble  indi- 
viduals, and  even  for  able  and  responsible  public  men  to 
see  immense  evils  than  to  devise  a  cure.  Yet  the  present 
case  seems  to  call  for  one.  The  simple  though  vast  evil 
of  our  situation  is,  that  the  laws,  •which  governed  the  rcpub- 
lie  ofindpendcnt  states  before  1 7'^2  have  been,  since  that  pe- 
riod, in  an  uninterrupted  course  of  infraction  and  suspen- 
sion by  the  nat  on  with  whom  our  differences  depend.  To 
bring  things  back  to  that  sound  and  right  state,  which  our 
mutual  honor  and  interests  require  and  admit,— //6f  resto- 
rat.  on  of  the  universal  law  of  nations  to  its  proper  sanctity^ 
is  all  that  is  necessary.  All  without  this  wdl  be  nugatory 
for  us  and  will  issue  in  sure  disappointment  and  new  vex- 
ations, embarrassments  andinjuries.  It  is  vain  to  hope 
for  either  peace  or  honor,  or  profit,  while  any  foreign  go- 
vernment undertakes  to  legislate  for  neutnu  suites  by  a  sole 
unauthorised  executive  order.  The  commercial  spirit  of 
England  has  been  pampered  with  an  inordinate  quantity  of 
the  richest  food.  "  The  single  company  of  merchants  ofEng* 
land,''''  for  example,  •'  trading  beyond  the  C  ipe  of  Good 
Hope,''  have  expelled  all  the  nations  of  the  civilized  world 
from  ihe  Peninsula  of  India,  and  hive  laid  at  the  feet  of  its 
own  stupendous  trading  monopoly  eighty  millions  of  the 
enslaved  natives  !  Englarid  has  annihilated  the  c<jmrnerce 
of  its  Kuropean  enemies  in  every  sea,  and  turned  its 
streams  all  upon  itself.  It  has  for  several  )i.ars  fixed  its 
eyes  upon  the  trade  of  America,  the  merited  rewaril  of  the 
political  morality  of  our  civil  institutions  and  of  our  \u\q 
of  peace.    Wc  have  lately  seen  or  now  examined  the  sys- 


\ 


mm 


C   4e   ) 

tcm,  which  England  has  devised  to  subject  our  persons, 
our  ships  and  our  cargoes  to  seizure  and  confiscation. 
The  insufferable  outrage  on  the  Iri^ate  Chesapeake  is  but 
a  single  item  in  the  list  of  British  injuries.  We  desire  not 
to  inflame,  but  we  shonld  deprecate  halt"  cures  for  ancient, 
inveterate  and  multiplied  sores.  Let  not  either  England 
or  America  deceive  herself  with  the  hope  of  a  real  or  per- 
manent harmony,  without  a  remedy,  which  will  reach  the 
whole  disease. 

If  England  shall  not  return  to  the  ground  of  friendship 
and  justice,  under  the  law  of  nations,  what  is  to  be  done? 
It  may  be  wise  calmly  and  thoroughly  to  consider  the 
nature  of  our  present  intercourse  and  to  discontinue  all 
such  parts  of  it  as  may  produce  good  effects  on  her  v  ithout 
injuring  ourselves.  We  may  find  it" wise  to  prohibit  the 
entry  of  all  their  ships  both  public  and  private — of  all  their 
rum — of  all  their  East  India  cottons  and  silks— of  all  their 
woollen  manufactures-r-their  leathern  goods — their  giain 
liquors — their  silks  and  linens— their  fine  glass — and  such 
other  goods  as  careful  reflection  may  suggest.  We  may 
foi  l)id  their  subjects  to  trade — perhaps  to  remain  here — qnd 
such  manner  evince  our  just  dissatisfaction  at  their  deport- 
ment towards  us. 

We  hear,  upon  every  occasion  of  such  suggestions^  de- 
clarations that  England  will  make  war  for  such  treatment. 
She  shuts  us  out  of  every  port  she  chuses,  refuses  all  our 
manufactures,  and  much  of  our  pnxluce,  presses  our  sea- 
men, mulcts  our  lawful  trade  in  her  courts,  violates  our 
flag,  and  incessantly  commits  a  long  list  of  other  wrongs, 
and  if  we  adopt  measures  to  show  our  just  displeasurs  or  to 
compensate  tlie  damage,  she  thr^tens  war.  She  injures— 
—much — deeply— variously, — and  will  make  war  if  you 
take  measures  of  remedy !  If  England  or  rmy  other  coun- 
tiy  will  so  make  war,  we  ought  undauntedly  to  meet  the 
conflict.  But  her  government  ought  to  take  good  care. 
Unjust  and  unprofitable  wars  bring  public  discontent.  All 
the  neutral  states— all  the  impartial  world  must  be  against 
England  on  this  occasion,  and  with  America.  Her  whole 
injury  to  us  w  ill  be  some  plunder  and  suspension  of  our 
trade.  We  shall  soon  feed  onhers  in  our  turn.  Wc  shall  take 
from  her,  with  certainty,  much  of  her  present  manuiactur- 


bject  our  persons, 
aiul  confiscation. 
Chesapeake  is  but 
i.  We  desire  not 
cures  for  ancient, 
ot  either  Kngland 
>c  of  a  real  or  per- 
lich  will  reach  the 

und  of  friendship 
hut  is  to  be  done? 
,'  to  consider  the 
to  discontinue  all 
cts  on  her  v.  ithout 
ise  to  prohibit  the 
ivate — of  all  their 
1  silks— of  all  their 
;oods — their  giain 
e  glass— and  such 
iggcst.  We  may 
remain  here — qnd 
on  at  their  deport- 

h  suggestionsj  de- 
ar such  treatment, 
ses,  refuses  all  our 
I,  presses  our  sea- 
lurts,  violates  our 
t  of  other  wrongs, 
St  displeasurs  or  to 
,'ar.  She  injures— 
make  war  if  you 
or  nuy  other  coun- 
ntedly  to  meet  the 
0  take  good  care. 
lie  discontent.  AH 
kl  must  be  against 
erica.  Her  whole 
suspension  of  our 
urn.  Wc  shall  take 
resent  manufactur- 


(    <s    ^ 

ing  system,    Wc  shall  do  much  better  than  in  the  revolu- 
tionnry  war.      Our  countiy  will  be  more  comfortaI)lc  and 

f)rosperous  than  an}  other, and  we  cannot  help  thclossof  that 
lonest  and  beloved  peace,  which  England  will  once  more, 
have  taken  from  us.  Our  operations  against  the  dependen 
cies  of  England  will,  if  we  are  not  mistaken,  greatly  sur- 
prise her,  in  more  than  one  quarter,  and  on  more  than  one 
occasion. 

In  case  of  a  war,  thus  brought  on  against  law,  justice  and 
reason  by  Great  Britain^  she  will  full  into  the  decp-st  and 
most  settled  odium  in  this  country.  Ancient  prcjudi<  es 
will  be  renewed.  Former  wounds  will  be  again  opened. 
New  hatreds  will  arise.  Never  will  true  reconcile- 
ment grow  again,  in  the  lives  of  of  the  present  (gene- 
ration. The  name  of  Great  Britain  has  gone  forth 
with  much  sensation  to  many  nations-  Peals  of  indig- 
nant resentment  have  reverberated  from  the  coasts 
of  the  Atlantic  to  the  side  of  the  Danish  Sound.  These 
have  been  again  driven  to  the  shores  of  the  Marmora,  and 
the  coasts  of  Egypt.  Violent  discontents  against  England 
have  spread  in  many  directions,  and  if  she  forces  this  reluc- 
tant country  into  such  a  war,  the  world  will  be  convinced, 
that  the  subversion  of  her  commerce,  the  source  of  her 
perverted  uavy,  is  necessary  to  the  peace  of  the  cai'th. 


No.  X. 

Among  the  eailiest  the  most  unlawful  and  the  most 
offensive  violations  of  American  neutrality  by  the  British 
navy,  was  their  practice  of  forcing  our  citizens  'nt )  their 
belligerent  marine  service.  It  merits  a  place  diercfore, 
and  not  a  small  one,  among  the  numerous  supports  of  the 
high  charge  we  have  made.  It  will  be  remembered,  that 
Mr.  Jay  labored,  and  that  he  labored  in  vain,  so  caily  as 
the  year  1794,  to  place  this  matter  upon  satisfactory  ground. 
Great  Britain,  combined  with  other  powers,  as  she  pro- 
fesscd  in  her  pianifestoof  October  1793,  to  restore  mo- 
narchy in  Fraiioe,  compelled  every  impressed  American  to 


1; 


ritMH 


.-^ tm^^^.         I  "I  III  I' I   wt  ■"!' ^rr*iii    T'l 


.-^.iriiS.-sBK'-**; 


M 


(  **  ) 

fight  against  the  vial  principles  of  ourconstitutlons  during 
the  existence  of  ihc  French  republic.  Washington  in 
January  1796  avowed  to  the  world,  that  he  was  attached 
to  the  principles  and  struggles  of  the  French  rcvo'ution, 
because  they  were  similar  to .  our  own.  These  impress* 
ments  subjected  us  to  the  hatred,  the  contempt,  the  retulia« 
tions  of  the  French,  They  once  meditated  the  execution 
of  men,  whom  we  should  so  suffer  to  be  used  against  their 
country. 

The  safety,  the  respectability  and  the  political  morality 
of  the  U.  States  require  of  us  an  intelligent  and  faithful 
aflheitmc  to  ihe  law  of  nations  in  our  foreign  re'ations. 
1'he  prudence  of  this  country  and  the  candor  of  Great 
Briiain  should  concur  in  asserting  and  admitting  the  truth 
and  the  importiuice  of  this  position.  The  belligerent* 
h:ive  respectively  a  right  to  keep  the  neutrals  in  the  course 
of  'his  universal  puIMic  law:  and  the  neutrals  have  an  equal 
right  to  kt.cp  the  belligerents  in  the  same  course. 

We  have  no  right,  as  neutrals,  to  permit,  or  to  cause, 
cur  citizens  to  cuter  the  belligerent  armies  or  navies.  The 
belligerents  have  no  right  to  force  those  citizens  into  their 
batt;  lions  or  their  ships  of  war.  In  doing  so  they  would 
grossly  violate  and  endanger  our  neutrality.  Thcv  would 
render  us  at  once  odious  and  contemptible.  An  imfound- 
ed  claim  of  the  British  parliament  cost  us  our  peace  in 
l?".*).  We  say  imfounded,  because  it  Mas  against  the 
constitutional  law  of  that  day,  and  has  been  deliberately  and 
explicitlv  abandoned  in  the  case  of  Ireland,  by  the  repeal 
of  the  Bi  itish  statute  respecting  that  kingdom  called  "  the 
dcclanifory  act,"  v  hich  asserted  the  right  of  the  F.nglish 
parliament  to  bind  Ireland,  in  all  cases  whatsoever.  The 
same  illegitimate  principle,  and  a  similar  declaratory  act 
produced  the  war  of  the  American  revolution  and  all  its 
immense  expenses.  It  is  well  known,  diat,  in  the  course 
of  that  war,  monstrous  expenditures  were  made  by  this 
country  and  that  besides  all  she  could  pay  she  labored  long 
under  a  deb'  of  seventy  millions  of  dollars.  We  repeat 
it. — An  unfounded  claim  of  Great  Britain  cost  America 
the  nar  of  1775  and  the  immense  losses  and  expenses  of 
the  revolution.     This  is  not  mentioned  to  produce  irritar 


mm 


istltutions  during 

Washington  in 

he  was  attuclied 

ench  revo'ution, 

These  inipress- 

empt,  the  retuliu* 

:ed  the  execution 

iscd  against  their 

political  morality 
igent  and  faithful 
foreip^n  rchitions, 
candor  of  Great 
mittiiipj  the  truth 
rhe  bellipjerent"! 
als  in  the  course 
als  have  an  equal 
course. 

nit,  or  to  cause, 
s  or  navies.  The 
citizens  into  their 
iig  so  they  would 
jr.  They  would 
\  An  unfound- 
us  our  peace  in 
Mas  against  the 
i  deliberately  and 
id,  by  the  repeal 
:lom  called  •*  the 
t  of  the  Knglish 
hatsoever.  The 
ir  declaratory  act 
lution  and  all  its 
at,  in  the  course 
re  made  by  this 
she  labored  long 
rs.  We  repeat 
in  cost  America 
and  expenses  of 
0  produce  irrita^ 


mm 


(    45     ) 

tion,  but  to  nourish  a  virtuous  anTl  sahitarj-  spirit  of 
union  at  home,  and  to  excite  considerations  of  justice,  and 
an  h(»nourabIc  prudence  in  Great  Britain.  She  again  pre- 
fers an  unfounded  claim  upon  this  country.  She  docs  not 
declare  by  law,  but  she  intcllij^ibly  declares  by  practice, 
that  she  has  a  right  to  enter  the  ships  of  America  for  the 
pur|K)se  of  impressing  seamen.  We  say  after  our  goyern- 
ment,  with  a  confidence,  calm  and  sincere,  that  no  nation 
has  such  a  rii^ht  against  our  shi  s.  We  ask  without  heat, 
the  British  public  officers  and  subjects  here,  or  their  go- 
vernment and  counsellors  in  Kurope,  to  point  out  a  single 
clause  or  section  of  the  law  of  nations,  which  countenances, 
or  even  contemplates  such  a  right.  We  affirm  that  no 
treaty;  no  British  writer  on  the  law  of  nations,  ever  sanc- 
tioned this  unfounded  claim.  We  assert  that  ♦<  the  right 
of  search,'*  under  the  law  of  nations,  is  extended  by  no 
treaty,  no  author  beyond  goods  contraband  of  war,  goods 
of  belligerents  and  military  enemies.  We  calmly  chal- 
lenge the  ablest  and  the  most  learned  Englishman,  here 
or  in  Europe,  to  shew  that  any  treaty  or  any  writer  on  the 
law  of  nations  of  any  country,  has  ever  mentioned  a  right 
of  a  belligerent  to  enter  a  neutral  ship  to  search, 
I.  For  enemies,  not  military : 
II.  For  the  subjects  of  the  searching  power: 

III.  For  passengers  of  any  nation: 

IV.  For  seamen  of  any  nation  in  the  service  of  the 
neutral  power,  or  of  its  merchants. 

The  law  of  nations  authorises  not  the  entry  of  neutral 
ships  for  such  purposes.  The  law  of  nations  must  govern. 
It  is  inadmissible  for  one  power  to  say  they  will  not  ever 
give  up  practices,  for  which  they  can  shew  no  law.  It  is 
justly  offensive.  It  is  deeply  immoral.  It  is  even  a  cause 
of  war.  It  is  destructive  of  the  neutrality  of  nations.  It  is 
public  despotism.  It  is  to  trample  on  the  law  of  nations 
and  tread  the  rights  of  neutrals  under  foot.  It  is  an  injury 
to  adversary  belligerents.  It  is  a  breach  of  neutrality  in 
nations  at  peace  to  suffer  it  from  one  party.  It  prodiices 
disgusts,  resentments,  violence  and  war. 

It  is  in  vain  to  plead,  that  Americans  and  Englishmen 
appear  alike  and  speak  the  same  language,  because  the  in- 
disputable principle  of.  law  is,  that  no  belligerent  has  a 


-ii^— -- ^^  '-'-^ 


(    46    ) 

rig!»t  to  enter  a  neutral  ship  to  search  for  persons,  who  are 
not  really  military  i-iicmics.  Let  not  violent  assciiions  and 
determinations  be  resorted  to.  Let  not  the  alleged  neces- 
sities of  belligerents  be  pleaded  to  the  exclusion  of  tlie 
greater  necessities  of  neutrals.  It  is  far  more  necessary 
for  the  United  States,  not  to  give  just  cause  of  vrto  the 
continent  of  Europe,  than  it  is  for  Great  Briuiin  >  press 
unlawfully  passengers  and  seamen  to  man  ten  i .  fifteen 
sail  of  sl(X)ps  of  war  and  frigates. 

It  will  not  be  fair  to  say  that  these  papers  arc  partial  to 
France,  or  against  England,  we  contend  only  for  the  laws 
of  neutrality  and  of  sacred  peace.     We  mourn  over  the 
wounds  of  marglcd  humanity.     Our  faithful  government 
exerts  its  parental  care  to  save  us  from  those  evils.     It  is 
for  this,  among  many  other  causes,  dear  to  our  hearts.  We 
approve  its  conduct  with  all  our  minds — with  all  our  souls, 
l^ct  not  our  fellow  men  of  England  any  longer  persevere 
in  error.     They  have  not  a  shadow  of  public  law  for  im- 
pressmcnt  in  our  ships.     It  is  not  the  interest  of  England 
to  render  it  necessary  for  America  to  become  a  belligerent 
for  unlawful  injuries.    Our  government  has  shewn  tempe- 
rate, and  just  dispositions  towards  Great  Britain.  Its  mem-, 
bcrs  are  bound  by  the  inviolable  restraints  of  written  con- 
stitutions, to  do  right  and  to  avoid  doing  wrong— We  have 
no  power  or  influence  here  to  assure  the  passage  of  acts  of 
indemnity,  as  in  other  countries:  The  laws  reign  hore  over 
the  heads  of  our  public  agents.    Fiat  Lex-^ruct  coelum 
is  the  con  ititutional  motto  of  the  chief  American  function- 
ary.     He  may  yield  himself  to  no  considerations  unknown 
to  the  laws.    He  cannot,  nor  is  he,  we  confidently  and  aR 
fectionately  trust,  in  anywise  disposed  to  surrender  the 
liberties,  the  comforts,  the  neutrality  of  our  faithful  and 
intrepid  mariners  to  the  illegitimate  claims  of  foreign  na- 
tions— He  well  knows,  that  all  our  oppressions,  in  this 
form,  since  the  year  1792,  have  proceeded  from  G.  Britain. 
No  other  nations  has  done  to  us  this  pernicious  and  humi- 
liating  wrong;  this  illegitimate,  this  vast  injury.    Great 
Britain  docs  this  insulting  wrong  to  no  other  nation.     She 
never  enters  Danish  or  Swedish,  or  German,  or  Russian 
ships  to  impress  her  subjects  in  them;  though  she  well 
knows  many  of  those  subjects  are  on  board  of  those  ve§. 


mm 


persons,  who  are 
rut  assciiiojis  and 
the  alleged  iicces- 
exclustuii  of  the 
ir  more  necessary 
iiise  of  V  T  to  the 
It  Brituhi  >  press 
liun  ten  d.  fifteen 

pers  arc  partial  to 
1  only  for  the  laws 
I  mourn  over  the 
ithful  government 
those  evils.     It  is 
to  our  hearts.  We 
•with  all  our  souls. 
f  longer  persevere 
public  law  for  im- 
itercst  of  England 
come  a  belligerent 
has  shewn  tempc- 
Britain.  Its  mem- 
tits  of  written  con- 
wrong — ^We  have 
;  passage  of  acts  of 
iws  reign  here  over 
Lex — rmt  caelum 
American  function- 
derations  unknown 
confidently  and  afw 
]  to  surrender  the 
of  our  faithful  and 
ims  of  foreign  na- 
ppressions,  in  this 
ed  from  G.  Britain, 
rnicious  and  humi- 
Tist  injury.    Great 
other  nation.     She 
rerman,  or  Russian 
i;  though  she  well 
board  of  those  ves* 


mmm 


(     47     ) 

nrh,  and  they  are  easily  distinguishable  there.  The  pre. 
tciice  of  dilHculty  to  distinguisn  Americans  from  Britons 
sinks  to  nought  before  this  single  fact,  for  England  doAt 
not  ubube  the  right  of  search  by  attempting  to  im> 
press  in  other  neutral  vessels.  These  insults  and  injuries 
are  all  for  us  alone.  This  remark  is  not  intended  to  ag- 
jfravate — If  there  be  in  it  ought  of  aggravation,  it  consists 
m  iis  weighty  truth. 

The  object  of  these  papers  is  to  place  affairs  Ijctwcen 
Great  Britain  and  America  on  the  only  just,  firm  and  satis- 
factory  ground  on  which  they  can  be  restcd—/-6tf  f^round 
of  indisputable  public  Law.  It  is  the  law  of  nations  only 
which  prevents  u  foreign  ship  of  war  from  impressing  sal 
lorsand  passengers  out  of  unarmed  vessels,  in  the  bays  and 
rivers  of  neutral  countries.  It  is  the  same  law  of  nations, 
which  protects  the  neutral  vessel  from  being  boarded  for 
impressment  on  the  high  seas.  Annul  or  violate  that  law 
on  tlie  ocean,  and  you  may  witness  its  violatiou  in  our 
narrow  seas,  ouf  bays,  our  rivers,  and  our  ports.  Certain 
and  known  law  is  us  necessary  to  the  \Kacc  and  harmony 
of  nations,  as  of  civil  societies. 

Great  B.  prides  herself  in  her  courts  of  Common  Law. 
If  those  courts  or  her  admiralty  courts  would  not  give  re- 
medy  to  the  owners  and  master  of  a  violated  neutral  ship, 
lost  by  impressment  of  its  seamen,  that  cause  of  honest 
pride  must  lamentably  fail.  There  is  no  instruction  of  the 
crown ;  no  order  of  the  king  and  council,  those  arbitrary 
substitutes  for  legitimate  rules,  to  warrant  "  the  detenr. 
tion"  of  passengers  and  seamen  and  carrying  them  in  for  a 
«ort  of  legal  adjudication  or  impressment.  American  citi- 
zens, fathers  of  families,  are  torn  from  their  peaceful  and 
lawful  occupations  incontempt  of  the  law  of  nations,  because 
they  may  be  Englishmen  ! ! — Reason  is  reversed. — An 
English  sailor  might  well  remain  free  from  impressment, 
because  an  English  navy  officer  could  not  distinguish  him 
from  an  American.  But  it  Is  preposterous  to  say  they  may 
lawfully  take  an  American,  because  they  cannot  distinguish 
him  from  an  Englishman.  'Tis  to  subject  our  iiule|x;n(icnt 
nation  to  a  British  general  warrant.  Can  the  American 
officers  enter  English  ships  and  impress  their  seamen 
hcause  tbcy  look  like  Americans?  It  is  bclieveil,  that  the 


I 


(     48     ) 

English  sea  captains,  mates,  und  sailors  would,  in  such  a 
caste,  do  tho«*c  lhir^|5^,  which  were  proposed  in  the  it  cent 
Mil  of  a  late  Senator  of  Maryluiid.  The  Lovcninuut,  |)Co. 
pic,  merchants,  and  s<:amcn  of  England  would  Iht  tnms- 

Sorted  with  rcscrumcut  were  the  navy  ofTiccn*  of  the  U. 
itates  to  impress  the  crews  of  Knglihh  merchantmen  on 
the  coast  of  Great  Britain. 

This  huhincss  has  rcachc<l  a  stap;c,  as  it  regards  the 
rights  of  the  belligerents  and  the  rights  and  duties  of  neu- 
tral America,  which  retjuircs  the  calm  advancement  and 
firm  maintenance  of  the  whole  truth.  It  is  o»  no  conse- 
quence to  this  argument,  that  our  la>VH  do  not  warrant  the 
Impressment  of  seamen,  for  If  they  arc  exempted  hereby 
"  common  law"  principles,  they  arc  criuall^  exempted 
thereby  in  England,  and  wc  had  hopes  that  this  considera- 
tion would  liavc  secured  us  justice  on  the  subject  of  our 
mariners,  when  the  whig  names  of  Fox  and  CJrey  were 
found  among  the  negociators.  But  it  is  not  the  least  of 
tlw  mortifications  of  the  day,  that  the  whigs  of  England 
have  lx:en,  at  least,  the  involuntary  framcrs  of  a  treaty, 
which  leaves  the  seamen  of  this  single  neuiral  state  tx- 
posed  to  the  despotic  operation  of  British  impressment. 
If  there  be  any  thing  rigntcous  in  law  or  sacred  in  justice; 
if  there  lie  any  meaning;  any  sincerity,  in  the  alluswn  to  a 
community  of  language,  blood,  morals,  and  religion,  wc 
may  still  hope  that  an  arbitrary  power  over  the  bodies  of 
unarmed  men,  committing  themselves  to  the  protection  of 
our  neutral  flag,  will  be  quickly  and  completely  abandoned 
by  Great  Britain.  Yet,  however,  the  actual  aggression 
of  British  impressment  remains  among  the  earliest,  the 
most  dangerous,  the  most  offensive,  and  the  most  inju- 
rious evidences  of  the  high  charge  wc  have  ventured  to 
make. 


No.  XI. 


A  charge  so  high  and  so  solemn,  as  that  we  have  made 
against  the  British  government,  should  be  accompanied  by 
the  most  explicit  allegations,  the  fairest  trutlis,  and  the 


vould,  ill  fltich  a 
k;(I  ill  ihc  n  cent 
(ivcnimcut,  peo- 
won  1*1  Ik-  trans- 
Hiccis  of  the  U. 
merchantmen  on 

A  it  regards  the 
ul  (hitits  of  neu- 
icIvaiKcnitiit  and 
t  iH  ol  no  conse- 
j  not  warrant  the 
exempted  hcrdjy 
|ually  exempted 
at  this  consi(lera- 
\t  subject  of  our 

ami  (Irey  were 
s  not  the  least  of 
hij^s  of  Etigland 
ners  of  a  treaty, 
neuirul  state  cx- 
sh  impressment, 
sacred  in  justice; 
{ the  aUuston  to  a 
and  religion,  we 
vcr  the  botlies  of 
the  protection  of 
iletcly  abandt  -ned 
actual  aggression 

the  earliest,  the 
1(1  the  most  inju- 
havc  ventured  to 


lat  we  bave  made 
t  accompanied  by 
t  truUis,  and  the 


(    49     ) 

sotjndeit  arj^timents  on  our  part.  These  <!on»idcrotion» 
may  J»frve  U»  txcu^ic  our  attempt  t«)  adil  to  tin-  (li»cuitkioiia 
on  the  Hubicct  of  i  n^)rcs»mi-nt  eertiiin,  obscrvutioim,  wl.lch 
might  nnttxr  convenient  becwecn  m'ttmtrrs  of  state,  thougfi 
unexceptionable  and  uacJul  Irom  a  licc  prcws.  In  <I<n»>g 
this,  iKTspicuiiy  will  often  rcijuirc  a  rrpctition  of  the  onicial 

argument*.  .  ,  .  •        r 

We  present  to  our  renders  with  confidence,  the  ponition  ol 
our  government,  that  the  law  of  nations  (Icks  no  auUioiize 
a  lx;liigeient  |>ower  to  enter  a  neutral  ship  on  the  high  seas, 
fur  the  putposc  of  Hcarching  for,  or  Uikingout  any  iRihons 
but  military  enemies.  Such  an  act  cannot  be  justiiied  by 
the  proper  or  local  laws  or  eonstiuitions  of  a  paiticular 
belligerent  country,  because  foreign  munici|)ul  lawsdo 
not  aftect  neutral  ships,  and  jiersons  out  of  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  power  at  war.  Nor  can  it  Ik  admittetl  that  a  con- 
currence ol  municipal  luws,  would  render  a  principle  valid 

in  public  Law. 

I'hese  opinions  ore  unreservedly  displayed,  because  they 
nre  bi  lieved  to  U- correct,  alter  examination  and  itlke- 
tion,  andbecaustr  they  can  be  counter  argued,  if  wrong. 
But  if  England  had  a  rilsht  to  impress  her  own  subjects  at 
sea  she  ought  to  abstain  from  it  on  board  of  American  ships, 
because  she  cannot  ascertain  lli<  m.  •'  The  dilitculty  to 
distinguish."  Americans  Irom  Biiions  is  an  inf.ciii' us 
turn  of  expression.  The  correct  language  is  that,  in  t  ve  i  y 
case,  wherein  the  British  cannot  ascertain  their  subjt  cts, 
from  their  similarity  to  our  citizens,  there  exists  an  insupef- 
able  impediment  to  the  execution  of  this  extreme  per- 
sonal pr(x:ess  of  impressment. 

No  officer,  with  the  clearest  and  strongest  warrant,  can 
consciensciotisly,  safely,  or  lawfully  take  hold  of  anv  person 
in  virtue  of  such  warrant,  without  first  ascertainingnis  man. 
By  the  common  law,  the  man,  v  rongly  taken  in  such  case, 
may  resist  to  death  without  being  guilty  of  murder.  If 
held,  he  will  recover  damages  for  false  imprisonment.  If 
every  Englishman,  falsely  taken  within  the  Island  of  Great 
Britain,  can  thus  have  remedy  for  the  wron^  against  the 
high  sheriff  of  London,  or  the  «iHicer8  of  the  civil  adminis- 
tration,  surely  neutral  citizens  cannot,  with  impunity,  be 
made  prisoners  on  board  the'r  own  vessels,  out  of  the 


.■:v*r,T».: 


fSJXS 


rsfS-g- 'J"..  '"'I'js.'  'ig"'^* '  *  I'l 


(    50     ) 

Kngliih  juiUdiction,  at  ihc  ditcrctioii  of  every  yount 
mi(ti»hii}mnn  or  lieiitcnunt.  When  it  in  done,  the  Knglish 
officer  Ik  Hubjcct  to  dunnigt%,  or  uc  arc  in  a  worse  condU 
tion  than  sul»jtct«. 

It  in  u  kokmn  und  im|)erioiis  duty  of  the  United  Stateg 
to  take  a  culm  »tund  upon  the  stron)^  ^r(>un<l  of  law  und 
rvohon,  to  nrgk-ent 'injury  und  to  (jhtani  rtnicdy  in  such 
caMfM.  \Vc  have  a  cicur  right  to  urgr  ttx>,  thui  Knghhhmcn, 
lavvfiilly  contracted  to  us,  us  >eanicn  uiul  pasbcngcrH,  nre 
bound  to  remain  with  ua,  till  the  contnict  hhull  be  per- 
formed—und  that  thiti  constitute!*  another  iusupirable  ob- 
jection to  luking  them  from  us  by  imprcshment. 

1  lure  is  no  law  of  either  nation,  forbidding  our  agreeing 
with  Ikitihh  scumeii  and  passengers,  und  ue  might  an 
morally  und  justly  break  the  contracts  of  our  citizens  with 
di<.ir  sul)jccts  for  gom!h,  as  they  breuk  their  subjects  con- 
tracts  V  ith  us  for  services  or  -''^  passengers,  we  repeat 
the  suggestion,  that  law  must  necessaiily  govern  in  the 
buhintss  und  personal  intercourse  between  Americans  and 
Dritons,  if  they  mean  (as  we  do)  to  preserve  a  gootl  un- 
derstanding. We  do  not  invude  their  personal  rights. 
Tliey  must  cease  to  invade  ours.  We  do  not  invade  their 
rifirlits  of  propcily:  They  must  not  continue  to  invade 
ours. 

'I'hc  piacticc  of  the  impressni^r.t  o(  \hc  particular  class 
of  Briiish  subjects,  called  ••  seamen,"  even  within  the 
Biiiish  jurisdiction,  is  not  capable  of  being  pursued,  with- 
out an  illegitimate  sacrifice  of  the  principles  of  the  com- 
pacts between  the  nation  and  their  king  in  the  great  char- 
ttis.  Nothing  but  an  act  of  parliament  (perhaps  not  that) 
can  abrogate  the  stipulations  of  these  charters. — The 
long  custom  of  impressing,  like  the  custom  of  purchasing 
scats  in  parliament,  cannot  legalize  the  measure.  Hence 
no  man  has  ever  been  hanged  for  murder  on  account  of  a 
deiith  clearly  produced  in  resisting  impressment.  Great 
Britain  wants  soldiers  more  than  sailors :  yet  she  docs  not 
venture  to  impress  men  to  fill  her  regiments,  bound  to  the 
simic  places  as  her  ships  of  war.  The  impressed  sailors 
are  uninformed,  violently  conveyed  away,  confined  in 
floating  prisons,  and  therefore  unable  to  resist,  w  ith  suc- 
cess, the  particular  measure  of  oppressior.  often  dealt  out  to'^ 


Try  yount 
live  Knglisn 
or»c  coruli. 

litcd  Statrs 
of  law  iiiid 
(ly  in  hiich 
'nglitthmcn, 
Liigtr»,  nre 
mil  be  per- 
per  able  ob^ 
It. 

nir  agreeing 
vc  might  m 
itizcns  with 
Libiccta  con- 

Wc  repeat 
oveni  in  the 
lericuns  and 

a  good  un. 
onal  rights, 
invade  their 
ic  to  invade 

•ticular  class 
I  within  the 
rsued,  with- 
)f  the  com- 
:  great  char- 
aps  not  that) 
irters. — The 
f  purchasing 
iru.  Hence 
account  of  a 
lent.  Great 
she  does  not 
bound  to  the 
essed  sailors 
confined  in 
it,  w  ith  sue- 
n  dealt  out  Xf^ 


.(     »*    ) 

iheni,  even  hi  limci  of  the  moBt  calm  and  r,etf  ne  jjeaoef 
The  ilUgitimacy  <>t  the  imprei»»ment  of  real  hiijjlishrmn, 
withm  their  jiirinlicuoii,  increanci*  tlw:  ditwti^fuction  of  the 
American*  at  the  impressment  of  pcrtons  in  our  «hi|)N  on 
the  high  »ca».  We  know  it  to  .Ik-  unlawful  and  oppressive, 
and  that  it  justilics  our  citixcn*  in  resistaiu  e,  at  every 
huzartl.     VV.'  notice  this,  iKCU'tie  Ameri.  a  \vas  been  vio- 
Icntly  censured  for  introducuig a  bill  into  her  Ugislature  to 
clothe  du»  right  incertMin,  known  and  |)-rmanent  language. 
It  will  not  Ik-  denied,  that  the  i.iptain  an<l  crcwol  a  Hiitish 
mcrthiuit  Hhip,  (if  tieutnil)  m\  the  high  mx»»,  would  be 
juHliliablc  in  shooting  to  death  an  American  licuttnaiuand 
prcss-gitng,  (il  we  were  at  war  with  Trance)  who  should 
be  in  die  act  of  taking  the  contracted  American  seamen 
and  jwsscngers  out  of  such  neutral  British  merchant  vcs- 
■el.     If  so,  the  siime  nde  must  work  in  our  favor,  now  we 
are  neutral,  and  England  ot  war.    The  proposed  bill,  ihcre. 
fore,  went  only  to  declare  the  law  ;  not  to  make  it.     Great 
Brilam,  in  her  confidential  cabinet,  ought  to  consider,  that 
her  practice  of  impressment  is  giving  rise  to  serious  dis- 
cussions  widi  a  nation,  which  arc  full  tenants  in  common 
with  her,  of  all  the  legal  ground  of  the  British  empire,  of 
the  3d  day  of  July,  1776,  which  wc  shall  chuse  to  occupy. 

We  are  desirous  to  press  this  particular  subject,  on  the 
consideration  of  the  British  government,  iK-cause  it  makes 
her  many  enemies  in  our  country  and  may  make  us  many 
enemies  out  of  our  country.     Hei  public  men  and  subjects 
^  here,  have  witnessed  a  very  indecorous  newspaper  attack 
on  this  particular  subject,  upon  our  government,  con- 
sidernd  to  be  the  work  of  a  foreign  minister  of  a  belligerent 
power,  remaining  in  America.    It  is  dierefore,  no  pretence 
on  our  part,  that  wc  are  considered  to  have  l)een  careless 
of  our  neutrality  widi  respect  to  our  seamen.     There  are 
persons,  both  American  and  foreign,  who  firmly  believe 
that  Great  Britain  wishes,  by  engaging  our  seamen  m  her 
ships  of  war,  to  embroil  us  wjUi  her  enemies.  1  he  Lnglish 
government  know  how  utterly  averse  we  are  to  engage  in 
tkis  war,  and  therefore  such  an  opinion  in  the  nation,  and 
in  our  public  councils,  would  Ixi  veiy  unfavorable  to  her. 
We  speak  plainly  on  all  our  subjects.     It  is  the  language 
required  iathis  critical  time,  from  a  reasonable  andcorr^qt 


(    52    ) 

neutrality,  anrl  from  a  legitimate  amity  towards  all  the  bcl- 
lif^eretits.  We  hope,  however,  that  we  speuk  with  good 
temper. 

There  arc  circumstances  connected  with  this  subject, 
which  ought  to  engage  the  consideration  of  Great  Britain, 
W  she  wishes  to  maintain  her  standing  in  the  Uniud  States. 
During  the  session  of  congress  in  which  the  non- importa- 
tion law  was  passed,  a  member  of  the  Senate  fn  m  Mary- 
land, introduced  a  bill,  to  declare  the  legality  of  American 
resistance  lo  British  impressment,  by  all  the  force  and  arms 
of  the  impressed  persons.  In  the  next  following  session 
of  the  legislature  of  Maryland,  he  was  elected  their  go- 
venjor.  This  is  an  impressive  fact,  as  shewing  the  feelings 
and  judgment  of  the  wealthy  and  populous  middle  state  of 
Maryland,  concerning  a  strenuous  opposition  to  the  long 
continued,  repeated,  and  unremedied  aggressions  of  Great 
Britain  against  our  flag,  our  property  and  our  mariners. 

There  is  no  hostility  in  presenting  such  facts  to  the 
prudence  of  Great  Britain,  in  her  legislative  chambers, 
her  executive  councils,  her  courts  of  appeal,  her  prize 
tribunals,  and  the  public  halls  of  her  manufacturers  and 
me  chants.  The  impressment  of  our  seamen  was  the  par- 
ticular  object  of  the  Maryland  benator.  We  wish  it  to  be 
perceived,  thai  there  is  no  prospect  that  the  United  States 
will  any  longer  endure  the  violation  of  their  flag  by  impress- 
ment. Enghnfl  would  resist  by  force,  according  to  the 
form  of  our  bill,  and  in  every  way,  our  impressments  of 
her  trading  ships  crews.  We  may,  therefore,  resist  her 
impressments  in  every  corresiponding  manner.  She  may 
with  justice  and  goo<l  conscience  resort  to  the  laws  of 
peace.  We  have  already  done  it  in  our  non-importation 
act.  Our  citizens  must  be  protected  from  unlawful  arres- 
tations,  and  from  conversions  of  their  neutral  hands  to  the 
purposes  of  an  illegitimate  warfare  against  nations  with 
whom  we  are  at  peace. 


No.  XII. 


In  a  former  number  of  these  papers  we  mentioned  a 
Bection  of  a  modem  act  of  the  British  parliament,  relative 


oawjpwwfv^Xf  • 


Is  all  the  beU 
ik  with  good 

this  subject, 
ircHt  Bi  ituin, 
fniu  ci  Sratcs. 
lon-importa- 
fr«  m  Mar}'- 
of  American 
rce  and  ai  ms 
kving  session 
cd  their  go- 
^  the  feelings 
idclle  state  of 
1  to  the  long 
ons  of  Great 
nariners. 

facts  to  the 
t  chambers, 
1,  her  prize 
jcturers  and 
was  the  par- 
vish  it  to  be 
Jnited  States 
<;  by  impress- 
rding  to  the 
ressments  of 
e,  resist  her 
■.     She  may 

the  laws  of 
-importation 
lawful  arrcs. 
hands  to  the 
nations  witli 


mentioned  a 
lent,  relative 


(    53     ) 

to  the  dictation  of  rules  and  regulations  for  the  prize  courts, 
wln<Mi  M  j'i'ige  neutrals,  liy  the  British  king  in  couatil. 

TUi^  unjust  and  unprecedented  law  is  entitled  an  act  for 
the  enc"  ira^r^  ment  of  the  British  seamen  and  manning 
tin  Ir  navv  J  For  these  purposes^  it  coimtenances  the  iilea, 
tiuii  the  kiii<(  of  Great  Britain  may  direct  the  conscience 
a.  1 .1  ju  .gincnt  of  the  courts  of  admiralty,  in  condemning  our 
stiijvs  a,  If  I  caigdcs,  against  a  treaty  or  the  law  of  nations! 
It  'p!it  ;,rs  to  have  been  a  part  of  the  new  system,  whereof 
th-  iieaty  with  Ru.-isia,  of  Murch,  1793,  anrl  the  June  and 
Novcniber  oitlers  of  that  government  of  the  same  year, 
mnde  a  part.  Tjic  section  to  which  we  refer,  is  in  vol. 
39,  p.  J76,  of  the  Bitish  statutes,  and  runs  thus: — 

Section  35.  Provided  always^  and  be  it  enacted,  that 
nothmg  in  this  act  shail  be  construed  to  restrain  his  ma- 
jesty,  his  heirs  and  successors,  from  giving  such  further 
rules  and  directions  from  time  to  time,  to  his  respective 
courts  of  admiralty  and  vice  admiralty,  for  the  adjudication 
and  condemnation  of  prizes,  as  by  his  majesty,  his  heirs 
and  successors,  with  the  advice  of  his  or  their  privy  coun. 
oil,  shall  be  thought  necessary  or  proper.** 

In  consirlering  the  above  recited  section  of  the  Britisli 
act  of  Parliament  of  June  the  17th,  1793,  the  important 
reflection  forcibly  arises,  that  no  such  provision  of  a 
statute  ever  occurred  before  that  year. 

A  second  and  very  important  reflection  occurs,  that  the 
rules  and  directions  to  tlje  courts,  which  the  king  and  coun- 
cil of  Great  Britain  might  think  proper  and  necessary, 
mitiht  be,  and  sometimes  are  beyond  or  contrary  to  die 
universal  law  of  nations. 

A  third  and  very  important  reflection  occurs,  that  those 
rules  and  directions  to  the  courts,  might  l)e  contrary  to 
existing  treaties  between  Great  Britain  and  other  powers. 
This  was  the  case  with  respect  to  the  Danes  and  Swedes, 
in  the  instance  of  her  orders  of  November  fi,  1793,  for 
the  treaties  of  those  nations  with  England  made  enemies 
goods  safe  in  their  ships. 

It  is  now  intended  to  be  shewn,  that  the  constitution  of 
Great  Britain,  as  it  was  laid  down  by  such  eminent  jurists 
as  the  late  lord  chief  justice  Mansfield,  did  not  allow  the 
courts  of  admiralty  or  vice  admirultv,  to  consider  the  rules 


H 


(    54     ) 

and  direction!!  of  the  king  and  council  as  of,  governing 
force. 

No  case  can  be  more  correctly  adduced  than  that  of  the 
Silesia  ioan,  between  England  and  Prussia,  to  establish 
the  doctrine,  that,  by  the  constitution  of  Great  Britain, 
the  law  of  nations  and  existing  treaties  formed  the  exclu-  , 
sivc  legitimate  basis  of  the  adjudications  of  their  couits  of 
admiralty  and  vice  admiralty,  and  appeals.  On  that  occa- 
sion the  great  law  characters  employed  by  his  Britannic 
majesty,  were  Sir  George  Lee,  judge  of  the  British  pre- 
rogative court.  Sir  Dudley  Ryder,  the  attorney- general  of 
Great  Britain,  Mr.  W.  Murray,  (afterwards  lord  chief 
justice  Mansfield)  then  the  royal  solicitor-general,  and  Dr. 
G.  Paul,  the  royal  advocate  general  in  the  courts  of  civil 
law.  These  great  characters,  in  tlic  civil  and  common 
law,  attached  to  the  crown  by  offices  of  great  honor  and 
profit  held  at  its  pleasure,  will  be  found  to  have  decidedly 
rejected  all  authority,  but  that  of  positive  treaties  between 
Great  Britain  aitd  Prussia,  whose  subject's  property  was 
in  question,  and  the  universal  or  customary  law  of  nations. 
Their  language  goes  to  the  exclusion  of  the  innuendo  of 
the  section  of  the  act  of  parliament,  above  recited. 

Mr.  Murray  (after\vards  lord  Mansfield)  and  his  able 
and  learned  associates  state,  that  they  are  commanded  to 
give  their  opinions,  how  far  the  king  of  Prussia's  exiiecta- 
tions  are  consistent  with  "  the  estabiis/ied  rules  of  admiralty 
jurisdiction f  and  ibe  laws  of  this  kingdom''^  of  Great 
Britain. 

They  further  stale,  as  **  clear  established  principles  of  lata  ^ 
that  by  the  maritime  law  of  nations,  universally  and  imme- 
morially  received,  there  is  an  established  method  of  de- 
termination, whether  the  capture  of  enemies  goods  on  board 
of  the  ship  of  a  friend,  &,c.  be  or  be  not  lawful  prize ; 
and  that  the  condemnation  thereupon,  as  prize,  must  be 
in  a  court  of  admiralty,  judging  by  the  law  of  nations  and 
by  treaties."  They  do  not  in  the  slightest  manner  or  de- 
gree recognize  the  authority  of  an  act  of  parliament,  or  of 
an  order  of  the  king  in  council,  in  virtue  of  such  an  act, 
or  of  any  supposed  royal  prerogative,  as  legitimate  or 
equitable,  or  as  a  rule  to  them  in  a  tribunal^  which  concerns 
all  foreign  powers. 


as  of^  governing 

than  that  of  the 
iia,  to  establish 

Great  Britain, 
rmed  the  exclu'  , 
r  their  couits  of 
On  that  occa- 
y  his  Britannic 
the  British  pre- 
arney.  general  of 
t^ards  lord  chief 
general,  and  Dr. 
2  courts  of  civil 
'il  and  common 
great  honor  and 
►  have  decidedly 
treaties  between 
's  property  was 
J  law  of  nations, 
the  innuendo  of 
;  recited, 
d)  and  his  able 

commanded  to 
ussia's  exjiecta- 
ules  of  admiralty 
dom'^  of  Great 

Principles  oflavt^ 
sally  and  imme- 
method  of  de- 
s  goods  on  board 
3t  lawful  prize ; 
prize,  must  be 
^  of  nations  and 
it  manner  or  de- 
oarliament,  or  of 
of  such  an  act, 
IS  legitimate  or 
which  conccma 


•(     55     ) 

It  is  further  stated  by  these  able  and  learned  officers  of 
the  British  crown  itself,  that  "  if  the  sentence  of  the  court 
of  admiralty  be  thought  erroneous,  there  is  in  every  coun- 
try a  superior  court  of  review,  &c;  and  that  this  superior 
court  judges  by  the  same  rule  which  governs  the  court  of 
admiralty,  viz.  the  law  of  nations,  and  the  treaties  sub- 
sisting with  that  neutral  power,  whose  subject  is  a  party 
before  them."  Nor  one  sided  acts  of  a  parliament,  nor 
one  sided  orders  of  a  king  in  council,  are  acknowledged  to 
be  law  or  rule  or  direction  to  these  courts,  whose  jurisdic- 
tion includes  all  sides,  and  all  nations  and  their  paramount 
universal  law. 

The  British  crown  lawyers  proceed  to  declare,  tliat  "  \\\ 
this  method  all  captures  at  sea  were  tried  during  the  last 
war  by  Great  Britain,  France  and  Spain,  and  submitted  to 
by  the  neutral  powers.  In  this  method,  by  courts  of  ad- 
miralty acting  according  to  the  law  of  nations  and  particu- 
lar  treaties,  say  they,  all  captures  at  sea  have  been  immc, 
mortally  judged  of  in  every  country  of  Europe.  Any 
other  method  of  trial  (say  Murray,  lord  Mansfield  and  his 
associates)  would  be  manifestly,  unjust,  absurd  and  im, 
practicable."  Such  is  the  true  character  of  the  section, 
and  of  the  doctrine  it  insinuates,  as  though  it  had  been 
known  and  lyceived  and  sound. 

In  the  next  section,  they  speak  of  the  law  of  nations, 
as  the  general  rule  capable  of  being  varied  or  departed 
from  only  by  mutual  agreement,  bet\veen  two  po^\'crs. 
Treaties  and  usage  Cthe  written  and  prescriptive  law  of  na- 
tions) are  recognized  as  the  certain  known  and  only  rules 
of  courts  of  admiralty  in  all  cases  of  captures.  They  re- 
cognize the  right  of  judges  of  the  admiralty  to  be  *'  left 
free,  and  to  give  sentence  according  to  their  conscience:* 
"  Every  foreijjn  prince  in  amity,  say  thev,  has  a  right  to 
demand  that  justice  shall  be  done  his  subjects,  in  tiiose 
courts,  according  to  the  law  of  nations  and  particular  trea, 
ties,  where  any  are  subsisting.  If,  in  re  minine  diibia, 
these  courts  proceed  upon  foundations  directly  opposite  to 
the  lavv  of  nations  or  subsisting  treaties,  the  neutral  state 
has  a  right  to  complain  of  such  determination.  Uut  there 
never  was  nor  never  can  be  any  other  cqnitabk  method  of 
trial.     All  the  maritime  nations  of  Europe  have,  when  :it 


'p 


v. 


-ii 


4 


jm^ 


f 


I 


(     56     ) 

war,  from  the  earliest  times,  uniformly  proceeded  in  this 
way,  with  the  approbation  of  all  the  powers  at  peace.  They 
add  these  remarkable  declarations,  that  "  in  England  the 
crown  never  interferes  with  the  course  of  justice.  No 
order  or  intimation  is  ever  given  to  any  judge:  and  that 
♦*  the  British  minister  knew,  that  it  was  die  duty  of  the 
courts  of  admiralty  to  do  equal  justice;" 

It  is  again  declared  by  these  British  judges  and  lawyers, 
that  "  all  ships  of  war  were  bound  to  act,  and  courts  of 
admiralty  to  judge  according  to  the  lav)  of  nations  and 
treaties  J*^  .  ' 

We  have  been  careful  to  make  copious  quotations  from 
the  formal  official  opinion  and  report  of  this  Britihh  ju'Jgc 
and  these  British  crown  lawyers,  in  this  most  famous, 
important  and  well  considered  case  of  the  capture  of  neu- 
tral Prussian  ships  by  the  British  public  and  private  ships 
of  war,  which  gave  rise  to  the  question  of  the  Silesia  loan. 
— 'I'hey  are  conclusive.—But  yet  we  must  ask  the  utmost 
attention  to  their  answer  to  the  fourth  Prussian  article, 
wherein  the  Prussian  government  states,  ••  that  the  Bri- 
'♦  tish  ministers  have  said  that  these  questions  (between 
"  the  belligerent  British  and  die  neutral  Prussians)  were 
"  decided  according  to  thelatusof  England*^ 

The  English  judges  and  lawyers  answer  "  that  the  Bri- 
tish  ministers  «•  must  have  been  misunderstood ;  for  the  law 
««  of  England  says  that  all  captures  at  sea,  as  prize,  in  time 
**  of  war,  must  be  judged  of  ii'  a  court  of  admiralty,  ac- 
"  cording  to  the  laws  of  nations,  and  particular  treaties, 
"  where  there  are  any."  They  a^ld  that  "  there  ne'  er  ex- 
««  isted  a  case,  where  a  court,  judging  accortling  to  the 
«*  laws  of  England,  only,*  ever  took  cognizance  of  a 

"  prize."  T7     1    J     L 

Such  was  the  constitution  and  law  of  England,  the 
law  of  Europe,  the  law  of  all  the  nations  of  the  world, 
accurately  laid  down,  after  deliberate  official  examination, 
and  consideration  in  the  responsible  characters  of  British 
judges  and  crown  officers  by  William  Murray  (afterwards 
eari  Mansfield)  and  his  associates,  in  this  important  com- 
mission.   This  solemn  proceeding  was  had  in  conse- 

•  Tbit  it  equally  strong  ugaintt  pleat.  Under  Britith  municipal  law,  itt  regard 
to  imprettvxentt  it*  our  tliifit. 


proceeded  in  thi9 

crs  at  peace.  They 

•'  in  England  the 

s  of  justice.     No 

V  judge:  and  that 
'as  the  duty  of  the 

jdges  and  lawyers, 
act,  and  courts  of 
3W  o/'  nations  and 

(US  quotations  from 
this  British  ju('gc 
this  most  famous, 
he  capture  of  neu- 
ic  and  private  ships 
of  the  Silesia  loan. 
lUst  ask  the  utmost 
h  Pruskian  article, 
:s,  ♦•  that  the  Bri- 
juestions  (between 
ral  Prussians)  were 
land.** 

wer  •'  that  the  Bri- 
erstood ;  for  the  law 
:a,  as  prize,  in  time 
t  of  admiralty,  ac- 
particular  treaties, 
rt  "there ne'er ex- 
ig  according  to  the 
k  cognizance  of  a 

V  of  England,  the 
tions  of  the  world, 
►fficial  examination, 
laracters  of  British 
Murray  (afterwards 
his  important  corn- 
was  had  in  conse- 

h  municipal  /ow,  in  regard 


(     57     ) 


r 

I  quence  of  an  express  order  of  king  George  the  Second  oi 
I  G.  Britain,  to  those  public  characters,  through  his  I'liii- 
I  cipal  secretary  of  state,  the  du!  c  ot  Nt\\ castle.  'I  lu; 
I  duke's  letter,  covering  these  law  officers  joint  aiisver  lo 
Mr  Mitchell,  the  Prussian  secretary  of  kgation,  ccntains 
some  important  confirmations,  and  declarafioiis.  In  his 
second  paragi-aph,  he  expressly  and  without  (iiialifiviiMou 
asserts,  that  "  the  law  of  nations  is  universally  aliov.ed 
to  be  the  only  rule,  in  such  (neutral  prize)  cases  v.  here 
there  is  nothing  sti  ulated  to  the  contrary  by  ])nrtit  iilar 
treaties,  between  the  parties  concerned."  'I'hc  <  tike, 
as  secretary  of  state,  fiirilier  (\'thi!cs,  that  the  rcpnrt 
or  opinion  of  those  crown  officers,  is  founded  on  lie 
principles  of  this  law  of  "  nations,"  and  that  the  courts 
of  admiralty, ."  including  both  tii*.  inferior  courts  and 
courts  of  appeal,  akvays  decide  accon'ing  to  the  universal 
law  of  nations  only:  except  in  "those  casts,  wlurc 
there  are  particular  treaties  between  the  powers  eonctrncd, 
which  have  altered  the  dispositions  of  the  law  of  nations, 
or  deviated  fiom  them." 

The  duke  of  Newcastle  also  declared,  th  t  the  alarm 
given  by  the  Prussian  conduct  to  the  whole  nation  arc!  by 
the  extraordinary  nature  of  the  subject,  had  deteitnii.td 
the  king  of  G.  Britain  to  take  time  to  have  thinjrs  e.\iin)in- 
ed  to  the  bottom  and  maturely  considered.  Hence  we 
see,  that  the  kinij;,  the  prime  minister,  the  adniiialty  ju<  ge, 
and  the  crown  lawyers,  (including  one  of  the  most  exten- 
sive learning,  profound  wisdom,  and  decided  attachnunt 
to  the  legitimate  prerogatives  of  tlje  crown)  have  fc :ir.'> 
tioned  the  position,  that  no  power,  right,  or  pierofi.tUit; 
"  to  give  rules  and  directions  to  the  courts  of  aclmiriiry, 
for  the  adjudication  and  condemnation  of  prizes'  exis  ed 
in  the  king  and  council  of  Great  Britain — Snch  a  power 
therefore,  could  not  be  inferred  from,  reco{,;iiii^ed,  siivtd, 
or  confirmed,  by  the  35th  section  of  the  act  of  .  3i.  ofG.o. 
the  3rd,  chapter  66.  Nor  do  the  w  ords  of  that  section  \;\  a  at 
such  a  right  or  prerogative  to  the  crow  n.  It  is  therelore 
correct  to  assert,  that  all  condemnations  of  neutral  An  e- 
rican  ships  and  cargoes,  made  and  confirmed  by  the  Bri  i:  h 
courtvi  of  vice-admiralty  and  appeals  agai.st  the  law  of  n  - 
tions,  or  beyond  or  without  that  law,  upon  the  order b  of 
the  king  of  England  are  unjust,  ilkgitimate,  matteisof 


r\\ 


li 


Hi 


lii 


rr 


(   s»    ) 

iightful  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  neutral  countries, 
and  which  uutitorizc  us  "  to  demand  that  justice  be 
yet  done  us,  in  those  British  courts,  according  to  the 
law  of  nations",  for  all  captures  prior  to  Mr.  Jay's 
tre  ity  and  since  its  expiration ;  and  according  to  the 
l.iv  oi'  nations  and  lli.it  treaty,  fur  ail  captures  during 
ith  being  and  continuing  in  force.  Never  was  there 
a  fiirer,  sounder  or  sliongcr  ground  to  require,  that  a  com- 
nu-iMioii  be  established  to  ascertain  our  damages  and  inju- 
rits,  with  costs,  charges  and  imprest,  in  all  cases  wherein 
(ktentJoiis,  captures  and  condemnations  have  occurred, 
solely  in  consequence  of  those  British  executive  orders. 
\Vc  have  suffeted  deeply  from  this  act,  from  British  anti- 
neutral  treaties,  and  orders  of  that  crown  ;  but  the  injuri. 
ous  conse(|uences  in  the  wars  of  1793  and  1803,  and  hi 
future  ivars  cannot  be  estimated. 

We  have  before  remarked,  that  our  original  nation  of 
the  3d  of  July,  1776  having  been  divided  in  due  form, 
we  are  full  tenants  in  common  with  our  late  British  compa- 
triots in  all  the  ground  of  the  constitution  and  general  laws 
of  our  former  empire,  nvbicb  we  choose  to  occupy — and  we 
may  add,  that  at  the  epocha  of  our  separation,  no  such 
section  existed.  It  cannot  therefore  in  law,  right,  or  con- 
science be  used  to  affect  us,  but  the  settled  doctrines  of 
Mansfield  and  his  associates  may  be  specially  pleaded  in 
our  favor.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  a  foreign  course 
of  practice,  under  such  orders,  against  the  law  of  nations, 
is  a  sufficient  cause  of  war^  whenever  it  occurs  without 
redress.  Nor  can  it  be  denied,  that  this  unprecedented 
section,  and  that  of  the  British  act  of  1803,  in  the  same 
words,  would  give  a  broad  foundation  for  similar  executive 
orders  of  other  foreign  governments,  if  they  passed  with- 
out our  protest. 

No.  XIII. 
The  notorious  perversions  and  misapplications  of  the 
principles  and  rules  of  blockade  are  among  the  most  perni- 
cious fruits  of  the  British  irregailarities  of  1792  and  1793. 
The  forcible  prevention  of  neutrals  from  the  lawful  carry- 
ing of  supplies  to  France  from  peaceful  and  neutral  Eng- 
land, Hamburg,  &c.  and  the  British  conventions  with 
Russia,  Spain,  Austria  and  Prussia,  after  the  war  had 


neutral  countries, 
lid  that  ju!iticc  be 
,  according  to  the 
trior  to  Mr.  Jay's 
I  according  to  the 
ill  captures   during 

Never  was  there 
require,  that  a  com- 

damaecs  and  iiiju- 
in  all  cases  w  herein 
)ns  have  occurred, 
li  executive  orders. 
,  from  British  anti- 
vn  ;  but  the  injuri. 
3  and  1803,  and  in 

ir  original  nation  of 
vidcd  in  due  form, 
-  late  British  compa- 
ion  and  general  laws 
e  to  occupy — and  we 
leparation,  no  such 
I  law,  right,  or  con- 
settled  doctrines  of 
specially  pleaded  in 
hat  a  foreign  course 
:  the  law  of  nations, 
r  it  occurs  without 
this  unprecedented 
f  1803,  in  the  same 
or  similar  executive 
if  they  passed  with- 


isapplications  of  the 
on^  the  most  perni- 
i  of  1792  and  1793. 
•m  the  lawful  carry- 
al  and  neutral  Eng- 
1  conventions  with 
after  the  war  had 


MP* 


.  (        W        ) 

began,  with  the  conduct  observed  to  Genoa,  Tuscany  and 
America,  the  attempts  of  Kngland  upon  the  Danes  luid 
Swedes,  end  the  monstrous  practice  of  nt  utral  inij^ress. 
mcnts,  held  forth  to  the  British  naval  conimandcif.  the 
l(rcatcst  encouragement  of  the  practice  of  insult  and  injury 
against  Lrj).  The  new  and  unv\arrantablc  section  of  the 
act  of  parliament  of  the  17lh  of  June,  1793,  impliedly 
sanctioning  executive  interference  in  judicial  trials  and 
decisions,  and  in  the  capture  and  confiscation  of  neutral 
property,  under  those  forms  of  law,  placed  the  illcgiti. 
mate  acts  of  admirals  and  ministers  under  llic  broad  cover 
of  an  universal  indemnity,  if  even  a  secret  order  of  an 
irresponsible  chief  magistrate  could  only  be  obtained. 
What  evil  practice  did  not  such  a  ataie  of  things  teach 
France  ?  What  vexation  and  injury  did  not  such  a  con  li- 
tion  of  things  hold  out  to  the  neutral  states?  The  unau- 
thorized regulation  of  all  neutral  trade,  under  the  name, 
pretence,  and  forms  of  "  Blockade,'*  in  eases  wherein  the 
rights  of  Blockaders  and  the  duties  of  neutrals  did  not  occur 
or  exist,  was  a  shorter  step,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, 
from  the  ground  of  lawless  violence  on  which  she  stood 
when  executing  her  convention  with  Russia,  than  was  her 
monstrous  step  to  that  ground,  from  the  situation  of  a 
correct  co-neutral  before  her  French  war,  or  from  the 
situation  of  an  honest  and  order  y  belligerent  after  ihc 
commencement  of  her  quarrel  with  France.  'I'he  neutrals 
were  to  be  harassed,  spoliated  and  impressed  till  they 
would  consent  to  become  parties  in  the  war  on  the  I''.nglish 
side.  The  whole  French  people  were  to  be  deliberately 
^starved,  till  they  would  consent  to  the  abandonment  of 
their  colonies,  the  partition  of  their  home  dominions,  and 
the  abolition  of  their  civil  constitution.  To  accomplish 
these  things,  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  in  the  manner  we 
have  seen,  usurped  the  legislation  of  the  ocean,  and  sub- 
stituted  orders  of  himself  in  council  for  the  universal  pre- 
scriptive  law  of  nations  and  for  his  own  obligator}'  treaties. 
To  produce  the  siirrender  of  the  French  colonies,  they  were 
deprived  of  all  trade  by  the  order  of  council  of  November 
1793,  contrary  to  the  rights  of  belligerent  Tuscany,  Prus- 
sia and  Russia  and  of  neutral  America,  Denmark  and 
Sweden.  At  that  stage  of  British  irregularity,  the  new 
perversions  of  the  name  of  Blockades  were  not  thought  of, 


?1 


I 


(     CO    ) 

nor  were  the  forms  adopted.  A  short  but  unparulklcd 
order,  (iircctinf^  ilic  seizure  as  well  of  liciligcrcnt  allies 
as  of  neutrals,  if  guin^toor  coming  from  or  currying  tlu; 

f>roduce  of  u  French  colony,  wait  secretly  adopted.  The 
iritish  commanders  followed  up  this  act,  by  prnchimationii 
of  DIockudc  rct>iK:cting  places  and  islands,  which  they  did 
not  cither  invest  or  aituck.  But  it  ansucred  the  purposes 
in  the  halls  of  their  admiralty,  for  the  couits  had  the  orcicrs 
of  the  British  king  and  council  as  "rw/M"  forthe  condem- 
nation of  the  neutrals,  and  tluy  found  the  name  oi  blocka<lc 
in  the  law  of  nations  and  in  the  proclamations  of  the  naval 
commanders.  'J'hc  fact  of  no  blockade  would  not  be  ad- 
mitted against  the  letter  of  an  Admiral's  proclamation,  in 
favor «  f  a  defenceless  neutral. 

In  a  short  process  of  time  another  consequent  step  in 
this  injurious  work  was  openly  taken.  Admiral  Sir  H(jratio 
NcUon  ^afterwards  l^ord  Nelson)  untlertook  to  ainiounce 
to  die  Neutral  consuls  residing  in  Cadiz,  that  on  account 
of  her  war  with  England,  "  it  was  found  right  that  Spain 
shon  (I  no  longer  have  any  trade, '  and  that  Cadiz  would 
conseijucnti)  be  liciited  us  a  blockaded  port,  and  all  the 
neutrals  were  to  sufltr  acconUngly,  if  they  should  attempt 
the  trade.  Here  were  the  forms  and  name  of  a  blockade 
illegitimately  announced  upon  the  ground  of  annihilatmg 
the  Spanish  trade,  and  with  it  die  lawful  trade  of  neutrals. 
Aiimiral  Nelson  could  have  been  regularly  impeached  for 
illegitimately  using  the  name  and  forms  and  rules  of  Block- 
ade for  a  purpose  not  at  ail  military,  and  avowedlj*  to  au- 
nihilaic  merely  the  trade  of  a  belligerent  at  the  expcncc  of 
neutral  rights.  It  may  be  said  that  England  would  have 
laughed  at  the  application ;  but  this  would  only  prove,  that, 
she  would  laugh  at  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  against 
neutral  rights  under  the  universal  law  of  nations.  Here 
again,  France  and  Spain  must  have  seen,  that  England 
%\ ould  proni|)tly  violate  neutral  rights,  whenever  it  should 
seem  to  be  licr  interest,  without  the  least  appearance  or 
p  eience  of  necessity. 

i'he  occlusions  of  the  Elbe  and  the  Weser,  under  the 
mime,  form  and  regimen  of  '•  blockade''*,  are  measures  of 
the  same  unlawful  character.  In  these  cases,  the  unhappy 
peojjle  of  the  electorate  of  Hanover,  whom  the  British 
Government  could  not  protect,  and  whom  they  did  not 
attempt  to  relieve,  were  deprived  of  the  opportunity  to  ex- 


■i 


-V 


t  but  unparuUclcd 
iiclligrront  allies 
)m  or  currying  tlu: 
tly  adopted.  'I'hc 
,  ljy  prnclamalionH 
els,  which  they  did 
\cred  the  puipobcs 
lUitshud  the  orders 
•jr"  for  the  condcm- 
t  name  oi  blockiulc 
iiitions  of  the  naval 
'e  vvoulil  not  he  ad- 
i's  proclamation,  in 

:onseqnrnt  step  in 
Vdmirui  Sir  Horatio 
rtook  to  announce 
z,  that  on  account 
nd  right  that  Spain 
1  that  Cadiz  would 
d  port,  and  all  the 
hey  should  attempt 
anie  of  a  blockade 
uiid  of  annihilatuig 
il  trade  of  neutrals, 
ilarly  impeached  for 
and  rules  of  Block- 
nd  avowcdl)'  to  an- 
it  at  the  expcncc  of 
ingland  would  have 
lid  ojily  prove,  that, 
isdcmcanors  against 

of  nations.     Here 
ieen,  that  England 

whenever  it  should 
least  appearance  or 


c  Weser,  under  the 
ie",  arc  measures  of 
aises,  the  unhappy 
whom  the  British 
whom  they  did  not 
I  opportunity  to  ex- 


'  (     61     ) 

port  their  produce  and  manufactures  and  to  import  their 
nct^wii.^ar)  rtupplies.  Thcii  electoral  prirxe  (and  political 
fuiiicij  iMii.ilerred  to  a  foreign  la.nd,  um.'(I  die  foreign  navy 
ol  uui  loicigit  state,  to  destroy  their  occupations  and  means 
of  au<j3isce<ice,  against  the  law  of  nations,  when  he  could 
not  protect  tht  ni.  Let  it  not  be  thong  t  that  S'lgj^tstions 
su  u^ccunga:^  tiiesc  are  pi|i)lish'.'d  to  oHFlii  I.  Lec  it  rather 
cccation  me  governmint  und  |H"ople  of  Great  Britain  to 
IKrceivc,  Hut  htr  illegitimate  and  ardent  career  of  anti. 
neutral  conduct  has  unhappily  wcasioni d  her  to  transcend 
ail  lUc  aws  of  reason  and  hum  uiity,  and  all  the  liinilationH 
of  iiiduDiuiilc  right.  When  E.iglund  was  a  nentn.l  in 
1792  ana  '93,  she  destroyed  the  neutral  HanoveriiM)  mar- 
kei  foi  grain,  in  the  Hansc  'I'owns:  and  since  she  has  been 
at  war,  she  has  interrupied  their  whole  import  and  expoit 
trades,  hhe  hus  obiigcil  dciiendent  Hanover  to  Ix-  neuter, 
to  avoid  theatuicks  of  the  F  rem  h,  and  has  djiven  Tuscany 
out  of  her  neutrality  to  fight  France.  Thus  she  has  hi- 
therto acted,  towarda  neutrals  and  subjects,  as  seemed  good 
in  her  own  eyes,  anti  sets  up  a  pretention  to  annihilate  a 
digesteii  treaty  with  us,  br<:tnise  Fiance  retaliates  some  of 
her  irregularities :  And  here  let  it  not  be  forgotton^  that 
whatever  may  be  the  date  of  any  Brinish  aggression  on  neu- 
tral rights,  or  whatever  may  iK'the  timeof  any  British  contra- 
vention of ,  the  usages  of  war  among  civilized  belligerents, 
her  four  treaties  of  '  7S*3*,  are  the  broiul  and  deep  and  early 
and  original  and  reai  foundations  of  all,  which  she  has  sine* 
done  and  which  the  other  belligerents,  adversary  or  allied, 
have  followed  or  retaliated. 

k  is  true,  that  die  government  atul  people  of  the  United 
States  have  not  a  right  to  make  formal  complaint  of  the  vnw- 
duct  of  the  belligerent  powers  in  otiier  and  remote  countries, 
btitas  the  friends  of  Great  Britain  often  justify  her  conduct 
at  sea  by  the  measures  of  Fiance  towards  the  countries  sub- 
jected by  her  arms,  it  is  not  in-elative  to  our  sul  (ject  to  advert 
to  the  anterior  English  conduct  in  this  respect!  The  p.rin- 
ciples,  which  the  British  commanders  "by  land  and  sta, 
adopted  in  the  early  stages  of  the  first  war,  are  fully  dis- 
played in  a  case  before  us.  General  Sir  Charles  Grey,  at 
present  Earl  Grey,  and  admiral  Sir  J.  Jervis  now  Earl  St. 
Vincents,  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  179'!,  took  posses- 
sic.i  of  the  French  island  of  Martinico.     In  the  f-ourse  of 

*  villi  Ruiiia,  Auytria,  Prustiaatk'l  c/;paiii. 


u 


(     62     ) 

their  public  actN and  protlamations,  un printed  in  Dcbrett's 

British  state  papers,  it  appears,  that  these  two  commaiKlcm 

openly  demanded  of  the  |)Coplc  of  Martinico  •*  a  sum  ol 

money  adecjuate  to  tfx  value  oj  the  conquest  (the  island  and 

its  rich  contents)  destined  to  reward  the  valour,  tocompen- 

I  sate  the  exccittive  fatigues,  and  to  make  good  the  heavy 

cx|)cncc  incurred  by  the  British  soldiers,  who  with  unsha- 

Ikcn  firmnesi  and  matchless  i)crscvcrance  atchicvcd  the  con- 

uuest*'  and  they  expressly  hold  forth  the  idea  that  this  mea- 

fkurc  is  in  lieu  of  "  a  general  conjiscation^  .  Such  proclama- 

ijlions,  in  the  first  West  India  campaign  and  l)eforc  France 

fhad  adopted  similar  measures,  are  unhappy  additions  to  the 

volume  of  real  British  exampUt  io  the  French  commanders 

by  sea  and  land. 

There  arc  not  wanting  many  respectable  British  authori- 
tich  to  prove  the  unwarrantable  and  systematic  interlcrcnces 
of  the  British  government,  in  the  first  year  of  the  war,  w  ith 
the  rights  of  neutntis  and  theinde|xn{lcnce  of  their  councils. 
In  the  historical  division  of  die  new  annual  Register  of  Great 
Britain,  the  able  and  candid  authors  of  that  rcspccUible  work, 
do  not  hesitate  to  admit  before  their  own  nation  and  govern- 
ment,  the  neutral  states  and  the  belligerent  powers,  that "  the 
ardor  widi  which  the  British  ministry(of  A.D.  1792-3)em. 
barked  in  the  war  against  France,  w as  i.rcsently  manifested 
by,  perhaps,  the  most  extraordinary  proceeding,  that  ever 
appeared  upon  record,  and  this  was,  to  force  the  neutral  tow- 
ers to  unite  in  the  combination  to  crush  the  French  republicy* 
Wc  do  not  mention  the  recent  instances  of  British 
dictation  to  the  neutral  states.  Wc  are  well  aware, 
that  in  those  insUnces,  wc  bhould  be  met  by  the  sug- 
gestion of  an  alleged  necessity,  of  which  they  claim  to 
Ik  the  sole  judges,  and  by  picas  in  respect  to  self  preserva. 
tion,  which  did  not  exist  till  the  termination  of  the  French 
directories,  and  do  not  apply  to  our  sincere,  disUint  and 
useful  neutrality.  Our  object  has  been  to  verify  with 
calmness,  decency  and  perfect  truth,  the  charge  against 
Great  Britain  of  original  aggiession  against  neutrals,  and 
to  shew  the  injustice  of  her  claim  of  retaliation.  For  this 
reason,  wc  have  generally  adduced  facts,  cither  of  dates 
anterior  to  the  French  and  English  war  of  the  1st  of  Feb. 
1793,  or  to  the  French  decree  of  the  9th  May,  1793,  and 
English  proceedings,  which  have  grown  out  of  tlie  early 

*  Extract  from  procUmation 


intcd  ill  Dcbrctt's 
two  cummaiulcrii 
inicu  '*  a  sum  oi 
?st  {lUc  iftlaudoiid 
^lour,  to  compeii' 
c  good  the  heavy 
who  with  unahii- 
Uchicvctl  the  con- 
Jca  that  this  mea- 
.  Such  proclama- 
ind  Ixjforc  France 
Y  additions  to  tbc 
nch  commanders 

t.'  Dritiiih  authori- 
latic  interlcrcnccs 
r  of  the  war,  with 

of  their  councils. 

Register  of  Great 
respectable  work, 
lation  and  govem- 
powcr8,that "  the 
V.D.1792.3)em. 
rsently  manifested 
ceding,  that  ever 
:e  the  neutral pov)' 
French  repumc.** 
tances  of  British 

are  well  aware, 
met  by  the  sug- 
ch  they  claim  to 
;t  to  self  preserva- 
ion  of  the  French 
iccrc,  distant  and 
n  to  verify  with 
ic  charge  against 
inSt  neutrals,  and 
liation.  For  this 
5,  cither  of  dates 
Dfthe  1st  of  Feb. 
\  May,  1793,  and 
I  out  of  tlie  early 


I 


(    63     ) 

diplomatic,  legislative,  tmval  and  nillit.iry  prfKiecdings  oV 
Great  Britain.     It  is  not  however,  to  put  the  lii  itiili  go- 
vernment in  the  wrong,  \x%  to  the  times  past,  tliat  this  ex- 
amination is  now  made.     It  is  amicably  to  per'iuade  suul 
induce  her  to  be  right  in  future;  or  in  ca.sc  of  our  roumrjr 
failing  of  success  in  so  lair  aud  nccestmry  an  object,  to 
endeavor,  by  a  collection  of  truths,  to  illuminate  the  paths 
of  right,  of  duty  and  of  interest,  which  lie  open  before  us. 
It  has  Ikicii  too  often  the  mi'»fortuiie  of  British  politicians 
to  desire  tlic  bcnclits  of  incompatible  circumstances  and 
situations.     Not  long  alkr  the  treaty  of  1783,  it  appeared 
that  Kngland,  then  at  [Kiace,  wished  to  manufacture,  to 
fish,  to  trade  and  to  carry  for  all  the  world  ;  yet,  employing, 
as  she  did,  two  thirds  of  her  adults,  with  man>  of  their 
families,  in  those  pursuits,  her  political  occonomists  com- 
plained,  tliat  this  wooded  and  agricultural  country,  sup. 
plied   diern  and  their  colonics  with  the  provisions  and 
lumber,  of  which  they  stood  in  need.  They  wished  to  farm 
for  the  world  too,  and  to  cut  wood  where  they  had  not 
people.    Now  that  Kngland  is  at  war,  she  wishes  to  have  all 
the  benefits  of  a  nation  at  peace.   As  she  cannot  at  the  mo- 
ment,  hold  competition  with  neutrals  in  cheap  navigation 
and  trade,  she  endeavors  unfairly  and  unlawfully  to  maintain 
the  forms  and  rules  of  military  blockades,  to  monopolize  the 
commerce  of  the  world.    She  commits  aggressions  on  neu- 
trals, for  a  series  of  years  and  claims  tlK-  right  of  retalia- 
tion, which  belongs  to  her  adversaries.  She  denies  the  law. 
fulness  of  supplying  and  buying  from  her  enemies,  and  in 
the  face  of  the  world,  enacts  statutes  to  enable  her  own 
subjects  to  do  those  things.    She  seizes,  by  the  sword,  on 
all  India  and  deprives  the  civilized  world  of  the  commerce 
with  seventy  or  eighty  millions  of  their  Asiatic  inhabitants, 
and  she  complains  loudly  when  her  enemn  s  afterwards, 
deprive  her,  by  the  s;ime  sword  also,  of  commerce  with  a 
smaller  number  of  the  people  of  Europe.     It  is  believed 
to  be  newssary  to  her  future  bcnclici;U  intercourse  with 
this  countrj',  that  she  claim  nothing  of  us,  inconsistent 
with  public  law— that  she  do  towards  us  nothing  contrar)- 
to  it — and  that  she  be  zealous  to  facilitate  the  foreign  sales 
of  our  produce,  or  contented  to  see  us  manufacture  and 
consume  it  at  home.     The  British  nation  is  not  either 
strong  enough,  numerous  enough,  or  so  situated  and  cir- 
umstanced,  as  to  do  the  whole  business  of  all  mrnlind. 


y 


r. 


wmf 


(     tit     ) 

•       Ko.  XIV. 

On  «  (lispasionate  consideration  '»('  the  preceding  his. 
toriuil  lacta,  in  their  i)alpal)tc  uuniicction  uith  the  iXnglo 
HuHsiun  convention  ol  17U.),  wctruHt,  that  the  high  ih.>rge 
ol'  ori  inal  agi^rtssion  on  ni-iitral  connncrcc  will  appear  to 
be  fully  esitubUhhed  against  the  Hritish  government.  If 
the  continuance,  increase,  aixl  niuiti|iiicuiion  of  thoNC  ag- 
grciiikiotis  an  not  admitted  by  (i  eat  brituin  and  her  i'rieiKh, 
n  biici'  recital  will  be  Hullicient  to  shew  them  to  the  im- 
partial world. 

Aciuai  iinprciiMmcntH  of  Uritons  and  other  aliens 'ind  of 
our  own  citizens  have  never  eeaned.  England  has  peiw- 
vered  oexetutt  her  own  </t>«/'(/M/n»unirlpui  law  on  l)oaitl  of 
our  ships*  on  the  high  seas,  in  vioiatirjiiof'the  law  of  n.iM"ns, 
ofuur  neutral  rights,  of  written  inu'ual  contracts,  and  ot  the 
safety  of  our  property  and  crews.  She  has  been  utterly 
reganlless  of  our  netitral  duties  and  dangt  rs  in  this  respect  j 
and  to  finish  the  subject,  she  at  the  samt  moment  takes 
our  own  contractev^l  American  citizens,  on  the  high  seas 
out  of  our  own  vessels,  making  tlicm  prisoners,  the  neu- 
trals, while  she  claims  of  us. alleged,  but  unascertained 
British  deserters,  in  belligerent  form. 

The  British  government  continues  to  encourage  and  to 
maintain  their  public  and  private  ships  of  war  and  courts, 
out  of  ncutnil  property,  by  suffering  the  exaction  of  the 
most  extravagant  anti  unfounded  bitis  of  costs  and 
charges,  as  well  in  cases  of  cleared^  us  of  condemned  vessels 
and  cargoes — to  the  great  vexation,  obstruction  and  injury 
of  our  neutral  trade. 

The  ncvv^  overstrained  and  contradictory  opinions  and 
decisions  of  their  admiralty  tribunals,  and  their  frequent 
contraventions  of  the  law  of  nations  in  consequence  of 
their  holding,  as  "  the  rule  of  their  courts,  the  text  of  the 
British  king's  instructions,"  continue  illegitimately  to  in- 
jure and  destroy  our  property  and  trade;  while  British 
merchants,  seamen  and  vessels  are  often  licenced  by  the 
crown  or  by  law  to  give  those  supplies  to  their  enemies, 
and  aids  to  tlieir  enemy's  agriculture,  for  which  they 
detain  our  citizens  and  condemn  our  property. 

The  operation  of  blockade,  (a  mj^re  and  strict  militiiry 
measure)  continues  to  be  substituted  by  excr  varying  and 
arbitrary  commercial  interdictions :  measures  levelled  at  tlie 
neutrals,  preposterously  and  unlaw  fully  called  by  the  name 


T^ 


ic  prrcfflinn  h'*- 
)  with  lilt-  iXii^ln 
It  thf  high  1  h->rf;e 
rcc  will  upfK,ur  to 

govcinnu'iit.  If 
iiioti  of  tluMC  llg- 
II  and  her  iVUiulH, 

thcni  to  tlic  in\- 

ithcr  allct\»  ind  of 
iglund  has  ptibc- 
lui  i«m  oil  tK)ai(i  of 
ihc  law  ofii.iM"ns, 
titructs,  aiulot  thd 

has  briM  iHUrly 
lb  in  this  re sjicct  j 
Ml  niununt  taken 

oil  the  hi(;h  seas 
isoncrs,  the  tu  u- 
ut  unuNCcrtaiticd 

encourage  and  to 
f  war  and  courts, 
r  exaction  of  the 
Is  of  costs  and 
ondcmned  vessels 
action  und  injury 

)ry  opinions  and 
lid  their  frequent 
I  consequence  of 
:s,  the  text  of  the 
Egitimately  to  in- 
e;  while  British 
1  licenced  by  the 
to  their  enemies, 
for  which  they 
perty. 

id  strict  militiiry 
fvcr  varying  and 
ires  levelled  at  the 
ailed  bv  the  name 


(    «5     ) 

•f  biockn(te<t,  accomp;inle<!  by  an  immoral  and  fatal  con(Li# 
cation  of  ship  and  cargt),  by  the  .vr  luciion  aiKU'oin;)Ui  «ton 
of  many  of  our  hara<i!tc(J  aeamcti  to  enter  in  ihcir  nhipn  of 
war,  and  by  the  Hubjccliou  of  the  rest  to  insult,  iujuiy  und 
final  impreMHmcnt. 

The  practice  of  iisuing  oriicrn  of  council,  working  sui- 
pensions  and  abrogati.  ns  of  the  la\i'  of  iiHtioiiH,  in  djc  iJiU 
tijih  prize  courts,  airl  inducing  like  abuu-i  an  I  rtialiitio:!* 
by  the  encmie»  of  Britain,  his  been  continued  throngli 
fourteen  years.  In  the  year  i'JO'J  the  section  of  the  Bri- 
tish statute  of  the  I7th  of  Jutv;,  1793,  indcmiifying  their 
miiiisfcrs  and  n  ivy  jrfi  :ers  I'lr  all  infractions  of  neutral 
rigiUs^  for  which  tht-y  can  exhibit  an  or<ler  of  the  king 
in  CQUiicil,  was  deliberately  re-enacted.  To  conlistatc  die 
property  of  a  prou  I  subject  of  the  British  king,  requires  a 
joint  act  of  her  thive  estates  in  parliament.  To  conuscatc 
the  property  of  a  tlcgraded  neutral,  refpiires  onU  an  oiikr 
of  the  British  crown!!'  To  such  a  pass  has  the  Briiisli 
govenmient  at  leii]^th  arrived  on  this  subject,  that  prepos- 
terously ilemuiuling  of  us  a  right  •*  to  profit  of  their  own 
wrong,"  they  ex  mvagantly  avowed  in  December  lust, 
that  they  were  to  be  considered,  as  holding  in  theitowii 
discretion  the  future  iss  liiig  of  these  orders  of  council,  to 
meet  their  enemies  avowed  retaliation  of  them:  and  this 
too,  no  as  arbitrarily  to  suspend  their  own  engagements 
only,  in  a  treaty  intended  to  correct  their  executive  usurp- 
ation of  the  legislation  of  the  seas. 

The  long  continuations,  repetitions  and  extensions  of 
the  British  violations  of  our  neutral  flag,  jxirsoiis,  property 
and  rights,  and  the  excesses  which  have  marked  them 
since  she  attained  her  present  naval  superiority,  with  the 
false  positions,  fatal  to  the  trade  and  jxiace  of  the  world, 
that  her  naval  superiority  and  commercial  monopoly  are 
necessary  to  be  maintained  and  must  be  used  to  her  own 
illegitimate  advantage,  ought  to  be  considered  with  calm- 
ness, wisdom  and  fiminess  by  the  United  States. 

The  injuries  inflicted  and  the  influence  exercised  in  the 
last  16  years  upon  the  neutrals  states  form  a  topic  of  die  most 
interesting  consideration  at  this  crisis.  It  is  our  duty  to  ex- 
amine into  their  origiiv'and  causes,  without  warmth.  We 
have  recently  seen  a  decree  called  a  blockade  from  tlie  em;  e- 
ror  of  France  more  extensive  than  any  single  ■^Q.i  of  a  belligrw 


! 


s 


M 


.f 


> 


I 

. « 

I 


'I 


I .  * 


!■  1 


(     60    ) 

rent  power,  since  the  commencement  of  the  French  Revoki- 
lion.  It  ib  however,  to  be  carefully  obser\  ccl,  that,  the  idea  of 
being  considered  as  accomplices  in  the  plan  of  monopoly, 
whidi  the  Emperor  charges  on  England,  is  strictly  confined 
to  the  neutrals  of  the  continent  of  Europe— This  strong  and 
explicit  French  denunciation  is  couched  in  terms,  which 
cannot,  by  the  most  forced  constiuctiou,  be  deemed  to 
include  the  United  States.     It  will  be  remembered  also, 
that  the  apparently  extreme  idea,  that  '•  to  be  neuter''  in 
these  modern  wars,  is  in  fact  to  be  ♦'  an  accomplice,"  was 
first  unhappily  proclaimed  by  the  government  of  Grdat 
Britain.     We  have  already  seen  that  in  the  year  I7i>3,  the 
British  minister  at  Genoa  declared,  inform  and  in  writing, 
to  diat  government,  in  terms  of  absolute  generality,  that 
to  be  neutral,  in  the  pending  contest  of  i'.ngiand   v»  ith 
France,  was  to  be  ,'  an  accomplice'*  of  the  latter.     This 
unfortunate  and  excessive  precedent,  set  by  Great-Britain 
to  France,  was  couched  in  language,  which  included  every 
neutral  countiT,  and,  of  course,  actually  and  fully  compre- 
hended us.     it  is  a  matter  therefore  of  no  small  importance 
in  an  accurate  and  candid  estimate,  that  in  the  French  act 
of  li;06,  actually  retaliating  that  of  England  of  1795  in 
regard  to  ''  neutral  accomplices  of  belligerents,''  France  has 
been  as  correct  towards  us,  as  Great-Britain  was  incorrect 
in  her  unwarrantable  precedent.    Another  important  point 
of  comparison,  as  to  the  treatment  we  now  receive  from 
the  two  countries,  merits  our  temperate,  candid  and  seri- 
ous consideration.     It  is  useless  and  injurious  to  admit 
passion. — Though  France  has  issued  her  decree  of  block- 
ade of  the  2 1st  of  November,  we  find  that  the  only  com- 
munications we  have  from  their  government,  and  from  our 
minister  at  that  court,  hold  out  to  us  positive  assurances 
tliat  our  convention  (freely  and  fairly  made  by  France  and 
by  us)  is  to  govern,  and  not  the  subsequent  Decree  of  last 
November,  made  by  France  alone,  and  her  cruisers  in  the 
Atlantic  have  acted  accordingly.      But  England,  having 
formed  a  treaty  >\  ith  us  on  the  31st  of  December,  holds  out 
to  us  in  a  rider  made  by  her  self  alone,  and  in  the  speeches 
of  her  minister  in  Parliament  and  in  her  January  order  oj 
council,  that  neidier,  the  treaty  as  made,  nor  the  law  of 
nations  is  to  govern.     This  conduct  is  the  more  remarka- 
ble,  because  they  knew  of  the  French  decree  before  the 
treaty  was  framed. 


IB 


T 


"iciich  Revolu- 
that,  the  idea  of 
11  of  monopoly, 
strictly  confined 
rhis  strong  and 
1  terms,  which 
,  be  d€cn\ed  to 
Ticmbercd  also, 
J  be  neuter^''  in 
complice,"  was 
jment  of  Grtfat 

year  1793,  the 

and  in  writing, 
gene/aliiy,  that 

England  with 
[le  latter.  This 
)y  Great- Britain 
h  included  every 
id  fully  compre- 
mall  importance 
1  the  French  act 
land  of  1795  in 
jw,"  France  has 
in  was  incorrect 

important  point 
ow  receive -from 
candid  and  seri- 
jurious  to  admit 
decree  of  block- 
at  the  only  com- 
nt,  and  from  our 
sitive  assurances 
e  by  France  and 
nt  Decree  of  last 
er  cruisers  in  the 
England,  having 
:ember,  holds  out 
d  in  the  speeches 
January  order  of 
,  nor  the  law  of 
e  more  remarka- 
iecree  before  the 


(     67    ) 

It  is  a  mist  unfortunate  and  indeed  an  unreasonable  tiling, 
that  Great  Britain  should  claim  to  consider,  that  retalhiiiori 
for  the  violation  and  illegitimate  treatment  of  neutrals  is 
to  be  made  nonu  by  her.  She  claims  against  us,:\  right  to 
"  retaliate'^  the  uses,  which  France  had  proposed  to  make 
of  neutrals,  although  England  has  been  making  those  uses 
of  all  the  neutrals  in  every  yea-  since  1792!  ft  would  not 
be  incumbent  on  us  to  interlere  in  this  discussion,  but  that 
England  claims  a  right  to  use  the  French  act  to  justify 
repetition  of  the  vast  and  numerous  injuries  she  has  done 
us,  from  year  to  year,  in,  and  since  1792.  Great  Britain 
really  knows  this  full  ivcll:  and  the  government  and  people 
of  America  know  it  as  well. — Let  her  honestly  and  pru- 
dently  examine  her  proclamation  and  executive  orders  in 
1792,  the  remonstrances  of  M.  Cbauv:Hn  under  thetli- 
rectionof  M.  Talleyrand  in  that  year^  and  the  act  of  Par- 
liament to  indcminfy  her  ministers.  Lrt  her  read  once 
more  her  own  great  leading  anti-neutral  treaty  of  March 
1793  with  itussia,  and  the  similar  treaties  in  o  which  o'.her 
powers  were  forced  and  induced  by  her:  Let  her  candidly 
remember  too,  her  orders  of  June  and  her  secret  orders  of 
November  17'J3,  and  the  conferences  and  correspondence 
of  Mr.  7*.  Pincknev  and  Lord  Grenville  on  tho;  e  painful 
subjects;  with  the  calm,  comprehensive  an  J  unanswerable 
representation  of  the  whole,  in  the  jiapers  of  Mr.  Jefferson, 
then  our  secretary  of  state,  laid  before  Congress  by  Picsi 
dent  Washington  in  1794 1  Let  Great  Britain  impartially 
examine  her  orders  of  council  of  January  1V94,  M^y 
1795,  January  1798,  and  at  other  times,  with  the  illegiti- 
mate proclamation  of  Admiral  Nelson  off  Cadiz  in  17L>7, 
and  similar  acts  of  her  other  admirals,  announcing  the  de- 
termined  annihilation  of  a  nations  ivhole  trade  under  the 
preposterQus  affectation  of  legitimate  blockades.  All  these 
wert  prior  to  the  Frence  decree  of  November  1306,  and 
were  the  real  and  indisputable  causes  of  that  decree.  To 
talk  to  us  therefore  of  our  duty  to  oppose  that  decree  is  to 
remind  us,  /;/  the  most  forcible  manner,  of  tiic  duty  we  are- 
under  to  oppose  and  to  procure  the  abrogation  of  the  Bri- 
tish precedents,  luhich  have  truly  brought  it  on  the  world. 

I^et  Great  Britain  hasten  to  enable  the  neutral  world  to 
take  just  and  effectual  measures  for  the  abrogation  of  the 
late  French  Decree,  by  worthily  and  wisely  treading  back 
the  unlawful  steps,  with  which  she  has  unhappily  advanced 


J 
\ 

I 


^m 


I 

V 

I. 


I 


c 


(     «8     ) 

during  more  than  fifteen  years,  in  her  diversified  and 
ruinous  violations  of  neutral  rights.  Ii  is  in  vain  for  her 
or  for  us  to  dt-ceive  ourselves.  Nothing  but  a  return  to 
Justice  under  the  Law  of  Nations,  can  preserve  harmony, 
serve  her  real  interests,  or  secure  inviolable  those  of  the 
United  Slates.  We  have  proved  too  clearly,  by  our  long 
and  patient  sufferance  of  vast,  numerous,  and  repeated  in- 
juries, that  we  have  not  been  hasty  to  seek  or  hazard  tlis- 
cord.  Things  are  at  last  arrived  at  the  most  serious  lengths. 
'Tis  unwise  to  hope  that  matters  can  happily  remain  as 
they  are,  or  run  longer  on  as  they  have  done  since  1792. — 
Weighty — solemn — a'^'ful  circumstances,  at  home  and 
abroad,  have  taken  place,  deeply  aft'ccting  them  and  us. 
New  events  of  equal  magnitude  seem  likely  to  arise.  The 
times  are  portentous.  If  Great  Britain  is  not  determined 
to  add  to  the  evils,  which  press  or  menance  her,  the  just 
loss  of  our  good-will  and  an  i  evitablc  privation  of  much  or 
all  of  our  custom  and  tra«  e,  s/je  wUI  not  persevere  in  vio- 
iatinp  the  legitimate  protection,  tuhich  ourjiag  should giv( 
to  aU  persons,  but  military  enemies,  and  which  it  s-jjould 
completely  afford  to  neutral  property,  in  every  branch  of 
lawful  commerce.  The  United  States  will  solemnly,  sin- 
cerely  and  .truly  deprecate  a  recuirence  tp  the  system  of 
counter  measures,  whereof  our  government  has  been  forced 
to  display  the  principles.  But  the  government  and  people 
of  Great  Britain  cannot  fail  to  collect  from  the  history  of 
the  two  last  sessions  of  our  national  Legislature ;  irom  the 
temperate  and  frank  declarj^tions  of  our  chief  magistrate, 
and  from  the  conferences  of  our  respective  ministers  here 
and  in  Europe,  that  America  is  really,  justly  and  deeply 
concerned  for  her  rights  and  interests,  and  for  her  neutral 
character  and  her  neutral  obligations.  It  is  time  for  us  to 
end  the  real  war  upon  our  citizens,  our  property  and  our 
fl»g,  which  Great  Britain  has  long  waged.  The  practice 
has  been  deeply  injurious  to  the  neutrals ;  The  example, 
if  continued,  may  become  ruinous, 


No.  XV. 

The  dispositions  of  Great  Britain  towards  the  United 

States  of  America,  after  the  ixjace  of  1783  and  before  the 

wars  produced  by  the  French  revolutions,  were  not  marked 

by  symptoms  of  kindness,  or  respect.    They  did  not  send 


HI 

'A- 


diversified  and 
5  in  vain  for  her 
J  but  «  return  to 
;servc  harmony, 
bie  those  of  the 
urly,  by  our  long 
and  repeated  in- 
k  or  hazard  dis- 
t  serious  lengths, 
ippily  remain  as 
ne  sinee  1792 — 
,  at  home  and 
ig  them  and  us. 
ly  to  arise.  The 
51  not  iletermined 
ice  her,  the  just 
'ation  of  much  or 
persevere  in  vio- 
'Jiag  should givf 
which  it  should 
every  branch  of 
ill  solemnly,  sin. 
to  the  system  of 
It  has  been  forced 
ment  and  people 
>m  the  history  of 
ilature;  from  the 
:hief  magistrate, 
'e  ministers  here 
justly  and  deeply 
djor  her  neutral 
is  time  for  us  to 
)roperty  and  our 
The  practice 
;   The  example, 


ards  the  United 
13  and  before  the 
were  not  marked 
hey  did  not  send 


(     69    •)  , 

a  minister  hither  till  the  year  1791,  though  we  joined  in 
territory  awA  had  extensive  connections.  Their  most  (lis< 
tingui;>heci  commercial  writer,  a  member  of  the  Irish  lords 
andiiiitish  ct>mmons,^  countenanced  the  idea,  that  it  was 
not  the  interest  of  the  mitritime  powers  of  Euro]x;  to  re- 
lievc  us  from  the  depredations  of  the  piratical  states  of 
B.ubary.  For  this  Zv-alous  anti-American  work,  he  has 
been  long  since  rewarded  by  a  l3ritish  peerage  and  an  ofBce 
of  prolit.  It  has  been  publicly  stateil  in  a  pamphlet  writ- 
ten  by  a  confiJcntial  member  of  our  administration,!  that 
the  British  government  meditated  the  dismemberment  of 
our  country  at  the  Ohio.  In  1"86,  they  agreed  with 
France,  that  free  ships  should  make  free  goods.  But  in 
1791,  the  report  of  their  privy  council  particularly  ad. 
vised,  that  such  an  agreement  should  not  be  made  with  us: 
and  they  have  conducted  their  treaties  in  the  most  decided 
and  rigid  conformity  with  that  partial  recommendation. 
Other  circumstances  of  a  more  offensive  nature  might  Ije 
stated,  but  it  is  not  wished  to  prevent  a  dispassionate 
consideration  of  existing  circumstances. 

Our  object  in  these  notices  is  to  shew  to  Great  Britain, 
thut  early  causes  of  dissatisfaction  have  occured  on  her  part. 

After  their  war  with  France  had  taken  place,  Great  Bri- 
tain distingui-hed  us,  beyond  (.tlier  neut  als,  by  many  em- 
phatic expressions  of  an  adversary  character,  by  a  series  of 
interpositions  in  our  affairs,  by  attempts  to  commit  our 
neutrality  with  the  other  belligerents,  and  by  establishing 
principles,  which  bore  upon  our  interests  more  than  upon 
any  other  neutral.  She  established  a  press  in  the  hands  of 
one  of  her  own  subjects,  in  the  bosom  of  our  national  go- 
I'ernment,  to  depreciate  the  principles  of  our  institutions 
and  to  oppose  the  rights  of  our  neutrality;  and  her  public 
editor  seduced  the  printer  of  our  government  gazette  to 
the  views  and  principles  of  Great  Britain.  I  For  these 
services  the  typographical  agent  of  England  received  public 
honors  on  the  floor  of  their  legislature  from  the  m(juths  of 
their  ministrj . — The  great  Premier  of  England  declared 
in  his  place  in  the  house  of  commons,  that  *'  the  inventors 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  |)eople  were  the 

*  Lord  Sheffield  in  his  commerce  of  the  United  States. 
t  The  Ute  \.  Hamilton,  Esq.  in  his  pamphlet  on  tlic  treoty  of  1*94. 
%  See  letters  of  Noah  Webster  Es^.  to  4.  Hamilton  Essj.  in  d(;fcBCe  of 
Prestdvnt  A^i'O)'' 


# 


(T 


, 


enemies  of  their  kind« '  In  pursuance  of  the  absertiou  in 
their  report  of  couucil  of  l^ljk.4hat  they  had  fonnccl  a 
party  in  our  senate,  they  carried  iilto>cxecution  their  ho|)e.s 
of  corruption,  as  was  proved  in  the  case  of  an  expelled 
member  of  that  body. — The  same  British  minister,  who 
was  their  agent  in  this  corrupt  attempt  to  commit  our  neu- 
trality, communicated  to  their  American  provinces,  that 
he  had  drawn  us  into  an  arrangement  on  the  subject  of 
St,  Domingo,  which  might  be  strongly  hoped  to  implicate 
us  in  a  war  with  thatet)wtr.--Briiish  'impressments  of  na- 
tive neutral  sailors,  oft  board  of  iMiUtral  ships,  v\cre  cunfiaed 
to  the  citizens  and  flag  of  the  United  States. — 'Die  impress- 
ment of  Britons  and  oiher  aliens,  sailing  as  seamen  and  pas» 
sengers  in  neutral  vessels,  was  comniiiled  only  on  board  of 
our  ships.  Tc  our  neutral  minister  alone  did  a  British  se- 
cretary of  state  presume  to  insinuate*  that  the  honest  and 
reasonable  cqinplainei;s  against  the  British  orders  of  cpuncil 
Jis  we  have  seen  ihcy  are)  were  the  intemperate  enemies  (such) 
of  America  am  I  England.— On  our  immense  legalized  traffic 
in  wood,  grain,  vegetables,  molasses,  taffia,  &c.  &c.  with 
the  French  colonies,  did  the  prohibitions  of  the  British 
order  of  council  of  November  1793,  impose  ruin— 
u  traffic  established  by  the  French  in  peace  according  to 
municipal  and  public  lavf—Awd  annulled  by  the  British  in 
vjwv  agaiftsi  all  law. — Upon  the  Americans,  only,  has  been 
imposed  that  refinement  in  the  business  of  neutral  spolia- 
tions, by  which  two  several  and  distinct  voyages  to  and 
from  the  United  States,  have  been  pretended  to  be  made 
one^  in  judicial  form,  in  order  to  work  the  confiscation  of 
our  ships  and  cargoes,  and  to  destroy  our  commerce. — In 
our  case  alone  has  the  British  inconsistency  occurred  of 
taking  the  benefit  of  our  new  war  trade  to  support  their 
colonial  agriculture,  while  the  like  trade  in  support  of  their 
enemies  colonial  agriculture  is  adjudged  to  be  cause  of 
ruinous  condemnations  of  our  vessels  and  cargoes.  We 
refrain  cheerfully  from  a  further  exemplification  of  the 
])eculiar  injuries  to  this  neutral  country — this  useful  coun- 
try, which  has  been  the  most  abundant  source  of  the  ma- 
terials of  British  manufactures  and  of  British  necessaries, 
and  the  greatest  purchaser  of  her  redundant  commodities. 
The  rescinding  of  the  dangerous  articles  in  the  Russian, 

*  Lurd  GrenriUe  to  Mr.  T.  Pinckney, 


f  the  absertiuii  in 
L*y  had  Ibrinccl  a 
ution  their  hu|)es 
e  of  an  expelled 
h  miniiiter,  who 
commit  ourncu- 
I  provinces,  tliat 
n  the  subject  of 
jjK'd  to  implicate 
iressmenlsof  na- 
ps, « CIV  cunfmed 
>. — Tlic  impress- 
i  seamen  and  pas» 
only  on  board  of 
did  a  British  se- 
at the  honest  and 
orders  of  CQiuicil 
ate  enemies  (sucfi) 
sc  legalized  traffic 
fia,  &c.  &c.  with 
IS  of  the  British 
impose  ruin— 
•ace  according  to 
by  the  Biitish  in 
>3,  only,  has  been 
3f  neutral  spolia- 
t  voyages  to  and 
ided  to  be  made 
ie  confiscation  of 
•  commerce. — In 
mcy  occurred  of 
to  support  their 
1  support  of  their 
1  to  be  cause  of 
id  cargoes.  We 
plification  of  the 
■tliis  useful  cpun- 
Durce  of  the  ma- 
itish  necessaries, 
int  commodities. 
IS  in  the  Russian, 

cy. 


(     71     ) 

IVussian  and  Spanish  trcuticsof  1793,  or  the  candid  aban- 
domneut  of  the  principle,  if  the  British  nation  should  fincV 
herself  at  war  with  thobc  three  powers;  the  repeal  of  the 
35th  Svctionof  tiic  act  of  the  17th  June  1793  or  the  simi. 
I jr  section  of  1803,   and  a  frank  declaration  against  die 
principle  of  them ;  an  abandonment  of  die  pretension  to 
nuke  rules  and  regulations  lor  the  trial  and  condemnation 
of  neutral  property  ;    tlie  relinquishment  of  the  practice 
and  pretension  of  impressment  in  our  vessels ;  Kitisluctorv 
declarations  upon  the  subject  of  blockades  and  a  general 
restoration  of  its  proper  sanctity  to  the  Jaw  of  nations  would 
revive  good  humoiir  between  the  two  Countries,  and  open 
before  each  the  bright  prospect  of  mutual  happiness.  Wt 
expect  and  desire  nothing  beyond  the  duties,  which  jus- 
tice  requires  of  Gicat  Britain.     Some  have  alledged,  that 
self  pix-servation  forbids  her  present  compliance.     This  is 
a  recent  pretence,  and  cannot  be  considered  as  just  or 
true,  or  admissible.      No  light  or  imaginary  obligations 
impel  our  government  to  preserve  to  us,  their  constituents, 
our  personal  rights  by  sea  and  land,  the  rights  of  our  flag, 
our  rights  of  property,  the  duties  and  rights  of  neutrality 
and  the  many  blessings  of  the  law  of  nations.     I'hc  im- 
pressiv^!  facts  in  the  prececding  pages  will  perfectly  con. 
vmce  even  candid  Englishmen,  that  Great  Britain  has  not 
claims  upon  our  gratitude,  sufficient  to  induce  us  to  become 
'  knights  errant"  against  tie  combined  powers  of  the  Euro, 
pean  continent.    No :  we  arc  ready  to  walk  with  England  m 
the  paths  of  justice,amity,  and  mutual  benefits.  But,  if  she 
continues  to  deviate,  we  may  righteously  cultivate  our  scpa- 
rate  interests.    We  may  continue  her  legalized  exclusion 
from  a  portion  of  our  trade.  We  may  extend  the  principle 
further.  We  may  include  person-;  .jnd  private  ships  as  well 
as  manufactures  and  public  shipt.,  in  our  reluctant  prohibi- 
t'ons.      We  may  select  more  objects  of  exclusion  than  we 
have  yet  chosen;  or  we  may  occupy  the  whole  field  of  pain- 
lul  inteivjiction.     Unjustly  wounded  in  our  external  com- 
merce,we  may  recur  with  vvh.dom  and  energy  to  the  invul- 
nerable  object  of  home  manufactures.     Obstructed  in  the 
ioreign  sales  of  our  agricultural  productions  by  English 
orders  of  council  and  pretended  blockades,  wermav  create 
for  these  productions  at  home  a  great,  certain  ancl  steady 
market,  by  cncreasing  exclusions  of  British  manufacture^ 
it  IS  a  sound  maxini  in  pur  political  oeconomv,  xh^t'so  far  ai' 


(     72    ) 

tj;^  cannot  trade  abroad,  we  shall  certainly  manufckture  at 
home.     Great  Britain  may  cherish  opposite  opinions,  b«t 
a  very  little  time  of  separation,  particularly  in  war,  would 
convince  her  of  a  fatal  error.     Those  among  us,  who  are 
not  disiKJsecl  to  promote  manufactures,  will  perceive  the 
necessity  for  their  aid  to  sup^rt  our  agriculture^  which  is 
plainly  created  by  the  naval  irrcgulariuts  of  Great  Britain, 
and  by  her  endeavours  to  monopolize  external  commerce. 
In  the  beginning  of  the  recent  wars,  she  made  a  combina- 
tion to  accomplish  naval  dictation;  but  haying  <iuarreled 
with  Spain,  and   we  may  add  pcrh.ips  with  Russia,  fche 
aims  at  the  monarchy  of   the  Ocean.     As  she  lessens 
industry  and  activity  at  sea  on  the  part  of  the  nemrals, 
she    will    increase    both    on    shore.       Every    maritime 
enemy  of  England  is  made  to  her  a  source  of  profit, 
for  she  captures,  wi  hout  law,  neutrals  trading  with  ihem, 
and  affects  to  legalize  the  trade   of  her  own   subjects 
with  the  same  enemies.     Neutrals  are  forbidden  to  trade 
between  the  ports  of  adversary  Belligerents,    while  by  a 
strange  pervosion  of  law  and  right,  those  adversary  beU 
ligei«nts,  trade  with  each  odier.      Our  neutral  ships  arc 
adjutiged,  in  British  courts,  not  to  make  free  good8,'*whjlC 
the  belligerent  ships  of  England  carry  as  free  good*,  tte 
riches  of  Mexico  and  Peru  for  their  Spanish  Enemies.  1  he 
peace  loving  nations  are  to  be  deprived  of  the  trade  of  one 
belligerent  by  ail  the  means  in  the  power  of  England^ 
who  is  thusto  monopolize  the  commerce  of  her  a<^e"^5J^ 
at  the  expence  of  the  rights  of  all  friendly  neutrals.  TrMf/ 
war  is  made  her  trade  :  and  Her  trade  is  war.    The  spoite 
of  neutrals  fill  her  warfc  houses,  while  she  in<iaECChit<  s  their 
bodies  in  her  floating  castles.    She  seizes  their  persons 
and  pitJPCrty  as  the  rich  Ifruit  of  bloodt^  victories  over 
her  uMrmcd  fiicnds.  Permitted,  in  peace,  by  an  unthink- 
ing worW,  to  lay  on  their  commerce  with  her  domimons 
every  poteible  restriction,  so  a»  to  encrcase  *^»"  private 
ships  and  seamen,  she  has  made  for  herself  oif  ^  those 
means,  that  naval  superiorltiy,  which  has  so  mucjfftijurea 
the  neutral  states  in  the  wars  produced  by  the  French  reyolu- 
^ions.    Thobainful  recollection  of  past  injuries,  the  solpmJV - 
imminence  (S  incalculable  dangers  and  theav(^l  prosjpectoT^ 
>  ruinous  substitution  of  power  for  «ght,  ^^  w?m!A' 


'^<^ 


/ 


JURISCOLA;^ 

•  S«« her  tie»Uci  with  Rusii*  kc.  March  1793.         ^  M'l 


'  manufdciure  at 
te  opinions,  biit 
yr  in  war,  would 
)iig  us,  who  arc 
I'llT  perceive  the 
uUure^  which  is 
)f  Great  Britain, 
:mal  commerce, 
[natle  a  combina- 
lavine  'luarreled 
with  Kiissia,  fche 
As  she  lessens 
of  the  nemrals, 
Every    maritime 
iource  of  profit, 
ading  with  them, 
:r  own   subjects 
rbidden  to  trade 
jnts,    while  by  a 
»j>e  adversary  beU 
neutral  ships  arc 
free  good8,*while 
s  free  good<^  the 
sh  Knemies.  1  he 
)f  the  trade  of  one 
krer  of  England,* 
of  her  adversaries, 
ly  neutrals.   TW&/ 
war.    The  spwla 
in<i?sBCdi»tts  their 
Ijies'  their  persons 
liias  victories  over 
:c,  by  an  unthink- 
ith  her  dominiona 
urease  her  private 
rself  o4^  those 
»  so  mucfcAnjured 
the  French  revolu-' 

ijuries,  the  solpmtv> 
le  awful  pro8f)ecto«|i 
lit,  require  a  aitand.? 
JtlRlSCOLAf 


^ 


I 


,t 


L 


